Re: Minified files and source code requirement
Roland Mas <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Raphael Hertzog, 2011-10-27 09:08:37 +0200 :
>> Obfuscated != minified.
> Intent is all very well, but if the effects of the operation make the
> resulting "code" unusable, even for the best of reasons, then said code
> can't be said to be the source.
I agree with this. The source has to be something that's in a reasonable
form for a person with appropriate skills to create derivative works. It
doesn't need to be (in my opinion) identical to the original, but to count
as source it has to still be reasonable to modify it.
Compressing all the whitespace out of it seems fine to me; you can fix
that well enough using an indenter. If the variables are also rewritten
into meaningless names, I think it becomes more borderline. If the code
is part "compiled" by, for instance, precomputing significant results or
doing things like turning a yacc parser into the table-driven C code, I
don't think it counts as source any more.
> I thought that the minimal requirements were precisely designed to
> reflect what's needed to do modifications in a sane way, but maybe
> that's just me.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>