Re: Meaning of `source code'

[Philippe Troin <phil@fifi.org>]

On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 23:20:16 GMT "Oliver Elphick" (olly@lfix.co.uk) wrote:

> 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?

Well, the question is, is smalleiffel capable of compiling itself ?
If yes, then they're no problem. Even if the preffered form for making
modifications to it is the Eiffel source, and you just have the C source
to bootstrap it, it should be ok.
This is almost like saying that GCC is not DFSG-compliant because you need
an other C-compiler to compile it (at least the first time, for bootstrapping).

Phil.




--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .