Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org writes: Sure, it should be - what happens if it no longer exists? That seems quite possible for a years-old journal paper. It can happen that the scientific paper has non-free copyright: it uses to be attributed to the journal where first published. Not the case here: the paper (actually a book chapter) was prepared by US govt employees so there is no (US) copyright to start with. Hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aags1rsg@mid.gienah.enyo.de
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 01:25:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote: I always thought that such distribution would be in breach of the GPL, or more generally of copyleft. After all, it is impossible to distinguish, from the outside, between lost and secret sources. [...] And if the I-want-my-sources-secret person does not care about later modifications, he might even really delete the sources. In such a case, the author of the modifications isn't in a privileged position. I am sorry but I don't quite understand this comment. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C. Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately deletes the C files. Then he distributes the compiled binary. By the if the source does not exist any more, what is left is source rule, the compiled binary now is its own source because it is the (only and thus) prefered form for making further changes. I feel that this is against the spirit of copyleft, so I am surprised that it is claimed not to be against the letter of the GPL. I do not understand what it has to do with privileged positions. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318214815.GA3066@debian
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote: Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C. Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately deletes the C files. Then he distributes the compiled binary. By the if the source does not exist any more, what is left is source rule, the compiled binary now is its own source because it is the (only and thus) prefered form for making further changes. Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in question anyway.] I feel that this is against the spirit of copyleft, so I am surprised that it is claimed not to be against the letter of the GPL. I do not understand what it has to do with privileged positions. Because the source no longer exists, the upstream is not in a privileged position for making future modifications. Copyleft is fundamentally about putting the users of a program on the same footing with the same freedoms as the creator of a program. Don Armstrong -- Leukocyte... I am your father. -- R. Stevens http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1546 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318224739.ga29...@rzlab.ucr.edu
