| Glenn Maynard 2004-07-24, 2:48 am |
| On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:51:41AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> If upstream supplies source in the upstream, as per Andrews definition,
> then I think that is OK. But if they don't, then that should not
> constitute violation of DFSG.
>
> We *need* a definition of "program" in the DFSG. This is the only way to
> fix the ambiguity.
I think this is a reasonable approach, in principle, as long as the word
"program" is removed from DFSG#1, #4, #6, #7, #8 and #9--so that it's
only used in #2. (s/program/work/ the rest, perhaps.)
I think that more discussion of the benefits and costs of requiring
source for other data would be useful.
A sticky point is that some things are considered programs by many,
which you may disagree with. Most high-hinted fonts are (or contain)
programs, and it's not clear to most of us what the nature of the source
for those are, since very few of us have any experience with them. Do
you agree, at least, that these fonts contain programs? If so, do you
think they should require source? If not, why not, and how could a
reasonable definition express that?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|