Re: Meaning of `source code'
Richard Braakman wrote:
>However, the DFSG does not contain anything like the "The source code
>for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
>modifications to it".
>I think it should, to make clear that things like compiler output
>are not source even though they might not be binary either.
>(An actual example of this was the smalleiffel package, though I haven't
>looked at it recently).
That is still the case. To be precise, the smalleiffel compiler is itself
written in Eiffel, but the upstream package only provides the C code
generated by the Eiffel compiler when compiling itself. It is possible
to build the package using only free software; it is _possible_ but not
practicable to change the compiler and tools by editing the C code.
To compound the confusion, the developers have put it under the GPL!
Should I move it to non-free?
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .