Re: Meaning of `source code'
On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 23:20:16 GMT "Oliver Elphick" (email@example.com) 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).
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .