On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:09:38 +0000 Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Lewis Jardine <debian@catbox.co.uk> > > > How about: > > > > If the author could change something but you can't, he probably > > hasn't given you the source? > > That is a very good rule of thumb, and really should be everybody's > first test for deciding whether something is source or not. Indeed. > > However, it still isn't robust enough to withstand attacks from > determined literalists. For example, you'll want to exclude instances > where the reason I cannot change something that the author can is that > the author is smart enough to understand the program and I'm > not. Conversely, the rule does not cover cases where the author has > thrown out the real source with the deliberate intention of preventing > anybody from modifying the work easily. I agree. The above question is a good "rule of thumb", as you stated. But the definition of source code is different: as I said, the best I've seen is the GPL one ("preferred form for modification"). -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpkIdCW1b8pO.pgp
Description: PGP signature