Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Francesco Poli wrote: However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make further modifications, just for practical reasons. Well: in those cases, the preferred form for making further modifications is that *compressed* form, which is consequently the actual source! It's possible that the compressed form can be impractical for some purposes but not others. -- 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/alpine.lrh.2.00.1103211503530.2...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Lost sources
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:08:13 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Francesco Poli writes: > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: > > > > > Consider the case where someone edits an audiovisual work using > > > uncompressed video and audio files, then deletes them when he's done > > > because they take up too much space. Plenty of sane people will do > > > this. > > > > In this case, by deleting the uncompressed form, they clearly show > > that they prefer to keep the compressed form for future modifications, > > rather than the uncompressed form. > > That's not so clear. Rather, I would interpret that situation as being > that the merson who made the modifications isn't interested in making > further modifications (or values making further modifications less than > reclaiming the storage space). > > By that interpretation, they might answer a question of “what is the > preferred form of the work for making modifications?” with “I prefer not > to make any more modifications to this work”. The fact is, whatever that person may think, sooner or later, the need for further modification may indeed arise. At that point, that person will answer the question with "I would have preferred that other form, but I discarded it, hence I prefer this one, among the ones I kept around..." > > In other words, by removing the uncompressed form, it's not clear that > they've expressed a preference for making further modifications with any > particular form. It's clear that they *will have* to prefer a compressed form, as soon as they face the need to make (unforeseen) further modifications... [...] > > However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the > > uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed > > form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, > > maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make further > > modifications, just for practical reasons. > > That's a departure from what was concluded elsewhere in the thread: that > free software entails that every recipient should have equal access to > the work for making modifications. I was not clear, sorry. What I meant was: the "we" in "we prefer" includes the original author. If the uncompressed form is really unpractical to handle, it may happen that even the original author prefers to get rid of it and keep a compressed form for making further modifications. In other words, when the uncompressed form is really huge, it may happen that we fall back the case where the author deletes it, as discussed above. I hope it's clearer now. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpwb7NyNJEYi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lost sources
Francesco Poli writes: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: > > > Consider the case where someone edits an audiovisual work using > > uncompressed video and audio files, then deletes them when he's done > > because they take up too much space. Plenty of sane people will do > > this. > > In this case, by deleting the uncompressed form, they clearly show > that they prefer to keep the compressed form for future modifications, > rather than the uncompressed form. That's not so clear. Rather, I would interpret that situation as being that the merson who made the modifications isn't interested in making further modifications (or values making further modifications less than reclaiming the storage space). By that interpretation, they might answer a question of “what is the preferred form of the work for making modifications?” with “I prefer not to make any more modifications to this work”. In other words, by removing the uncompressed form, it's not clear that they've expressed a preference for making further modifications with any particular form. > Hence, in this case, the actual source is the *compressed* form, being > the preferred form for making further modifications. Yes, recipients who wish to make further modifications would have little choice but to do that. But the person who destroyed their uncompressed form hasn't necessarily shown they've even thought about this use case. > However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the > uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed > form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, > maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make further > modifications, just for practical reasons. That's a departure from what was concluded elsewhere in the thread: that free software entails that every recipient should have equal access to the work for making modifications. If recipients have access only to a lossy-compressed form, but one party still has access to the uncompressed form, surely that's not equal access and hence isn't satisfying the spirit of free software. > Well: in those cases, the preferred form for making further > modifications is that *compressed* form, which is consequently the > actual source! I disagree. The preferred form is the uncompressed form, and simply isn't available to recipients in that case (and hence the recipients don't have the freedoms required). -- \ “Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything | `\that's even remotely true!” —Homer, _The Simpsons_ | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpjQn2N3kS69.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Don Armstrong wrote: > > 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.] > > It can actually happen. Consider the case where someone edits an audiovisual > work using uncompressed video and audio files, then deletes them when he's > done because they take up too much space. Plenty of sane people will do this. In this case, by deleting the uncompressed form, they clearly show that they prefer to keep the compressed form for future modifications, rather than the uncompressed form. Hence, in this case, the actual source is the *compressed* form, being the preferred form for making further modifications. > > (This situation also results in works which cannot be GPLed, if the original > creator still has the uncompressed files and refuses to distribute them due > to lack of bandwidth. GPL may not work too well when the source code is > hundreds of times the size of the binary.) Well, it's not the GPL that may fail to work well. The fact is that it's *not* Free Software, when the original author keeps the preferred form for making further modifications (that is to say: source code), but refuses to distribute it. Hence, whatever license you choose, you're *not* distributing Free Software, if you keep the source undisclosed. However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed form, the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, maybe we prefer to use some compressed form to make further modifications, just for practical reasons. Well: in those cases, the preferred form for making further modifications is that *compressed* form, which is consequently the actual source! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpvqSPrA8GRj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Don Armstrong wrote: 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.] It can actually happen. Consider the case where someone edits an audiovisual work using uncompressed video and audio files, then deletes them when he's done because they take up too much space. Plenty of sane people will do this. (This situation also results in works which cannot be GPLed, if the original creator still has the uncompressed files and refuses to distribute them due to lack of bandwidth. GPL may not work too well when the source code is hundreds of times the size of the binary.) -- 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/alpine.lrh.2.00.1103210809001.16...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Lost sources [was: Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?]
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:47:39PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > 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.] It is not common, but it does not require insanity. Only that the modifier does not intend to do any maintenance. I agree that, in the case of a program as in my example, Debian would not be interested in redistribution anyway. > > 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. Thanks for clarifying. > Copyleft is > fundamentally about putting the users of a program on the same footing > with the same freedoms as the creator of a program. Copyleft is more. Let A be the original author, B be the modifier and C a user of the modified work. In my understanding of copyleft, C should have the same freedoms (including access to real sources) with respect to the modified work by B as B had with respect to the original work by A. Not only the same ones that B now has with respect to his own work. I guess I'll just mark this as yet another reason not to use the GPL. 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/20110320205128.GA3200@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
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 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. In such a case, where you suspected secret sources, you'd sue, and during discovery, compel the information regarding the creation of the work including sources to be turned over. People could still lie then, too, but deliberately lying during discovery can have pretty harsh penalties. > 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. Don Armstrong -- A kiss was mysterious and powerful, fragile and invincible. Like any spark, a kiss might fizzle into nothing or consume an entire forest. [...] A kiss could change the entire world. -- Scott Westerfeld _The Killing of Worlds_ p336 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/20110316202557.gb23...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
