Re: Preprints/Reprints of Academic Papers in Packages

[John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:15:41AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages 
>> such as Perl.  I submit that any definition of source so broad as to 
>> include a perlscript must necessarily include a postscript document.
>
>The form of a {program,document} that is intended for modification.  This
>includes perl scripts (unless they've been run through an obfuscator),
>human-editable HTML, and human-editable PDF.  It clearly doesn't include
>most generated PDF.

So the Free Software Manifesto doesn't have any source at all, since it's 
an invariant, and therefore not intended for modification?  I'm going to 
go ahead and open a can of worms here and ask if Pine has a source, since 
it is clearly not intended for modification other than by UW.  Do DJB 
programs have a source: they're also clearly not intended for 
modification.

>I recall Roxen coming with a Tetris module, called GPL (I believe), with 
>obfuscated source.  Gah.
>
>There's also the case where there's no human-editable forms; ie, a document
>created in Word, saved as DOC and exported to HTML.  Now there's no source at
>all.

Isn't a Word doc clearly intended for modification, with Word?

<the rest elided, I see no more point in each of us reiterating our 
similar positions on the GFDL in new and conflicting ways>

-- 
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!