Re: Migration of non-free packages to testing
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:46:08AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> Although source code is required by DFSG (2)... rather unambiguously.
> It's possible we could play some semantic games and define something
> else as source code.
> It's possible that DFSG (2) is too dogmatic in its phrasing, too..
i have no idea how a lawyer or court would define "source code", there
interpretations are very often surprising if not shocking or amusing.
and wordnet says:
n : program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be
translated by a compiler or interpreter or assembler into
the object code for a particular computer before
which would mean that the output of a disassembler is source code.
common sense (mine at least) however would say that "source code" means
the code the software we are talking about was "sourced" from, i.e.
the original one. this is not nitpicky, but extremly important in my
opinion, because if we consider everything that you can compile "source
code" then everyone can take good gpl software, enhance it a bit and give
the additions back to the community in a completely unusable form (e.g. by
using some obfuscating software), in effect not giving anything back.
i think we should not give such a bad example.