Re: Meaning of `source code'
>>>>> On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 22:03:18 -0800, Philippe Troin <email@example.com> said:
Philippe> On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 23:20:16 GMT "Oliver Elphick"
Philippe> (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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
>> Should I move it to non-free?
Philippe> Well, the question is, is smalleiffel capable of compiling
Philippe> itself ? If yes, then they're no problem. Even if the
Philippe> preffered form for making modifications to it is the Eiffel
Philippe> source, and you just have the C source to bootstrap it, it
Philippe> should be ok. This is almost like saying that GCC is not
Philippe> DFSG-compliant because you need an other C-compiler to
Philippe> compile it (at least the first time, for bootstrapping).
This is what I was thinking initially, but it isn't the case. It's as
if the gcc was distributed as files filled with that intermediate tree
code (that looks like lisp), or the assembler and there was a compiler
to turn one of those into a binary. You don't get the original C, so
you can't go back and change gcc (without a lot of pain) nor can you
go back and recompile it. The only thing you can do is compile the
lisp or assembler (over and over if you'd like).
The original source code is not included. Looks like non-free to
me. (Also looks like they aren't following the GPL they put the
program under to begin with.)
@James LewisMoss <email@example.com> | Blessed Be!
@ http://www.dimensional.com/~dres | Linux is cool!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .