re: [Flightgear-devel] GPLing datafiles

[Jim W. <ji...@ke...>]

In the spirit of GPL I would think the test for "what is source" would be in
providing the ability to modify and adapt the file in question using
conventional tools.  An rgb file, for example, may be loaded into a graphic
editor and have all attributes modified.  The original source may have been
a tiff file from a digital camera, but using conventional tools the rgb as 
published maybe be modified in any way desired.

In that case I would think distributing the XLS file is not required in Dave's
example.  If it is, then that would be a flaw in the wording of GPL.  If the
wording is flawed, then I wouldn't think that a project should worry about it
too much as long as the spirit of the license is maintained in what they
distribute.

Jim

David Megginson <da...@me...> said:

> Cameron Moore writes:
> 
>  > The GPL says that you can redistribute binaries of a program and charge
>  > whatever you want for it, but you have to provide the source for free.
>  > That requirement gets confusing when you GPL a binary file that has no
>  > real "source code" (in the conventional meaning of the word).
> 
> Source code is whatever raw data format you need to make changes to
> something and regenerate it.  Don't most of the applications that
> produce files for MSFS have their own input formats?  In that case,
> starting from the MDL or BGL is like disassembling binary code.
> 
> For an example outside of our field, imagine that I am distributing a
> table of data in PDF and HTML format.  If I generate the table from
> Excel, then the source code is my original XLS file, even though the
> HTML version (at least) could be modified and redistributed itself.
> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> 
> David
> 
> -- 
> David Megginson
> da...@me...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
> 



--