On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:13:50AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org> wrote: > > > So yes, I agree that the ability to modify works is key to their > > freedom. But, as has already been discussed, the best definition of > > "good enough" that we know of is "the preferred form for modification" > > -- generally the form preferred by the author. If you're still arguing > > about that then please provide an alternate definition. > > Source code is any form of a work that allows any user who might be > reasonably expected to modify the work to perform any modifications that > they might be reasonably expected to perform. Occasionally a work may > have several forms that meet this criterion. By this definition, procmail is non-free because it does not have any forms that allow a reasonable person to modify it in reasonable ways. It is not the definition that we use. We accept procmail as free because it can be modified by the author, even though it's impenetrable to most other people. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature