On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:46:08AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote: > Although source code is required by DFSG (2)... rather unambiguously. Mmmm, I forgot about that. > It's possible we could play some semantic games and define something > else as source code. At present we don't define it at all. I think the GNU GPL's definition of "source code" is the best one I've seen. ("The preferred form for making changes to the work.") > It's possible that DFSG (2) is too dogmatic in its phrasing, too.. I don't think so. If Amstrad lost track of the source code to the ZX Spectrum ROMs, then there are two possibilities: 1) There is no preferred form for making changes, and there thus is no source code. This in and of itself would mean it's non-DFSG-free. 2) There are people willing to hack on the machine code, or disassemble it and attempt to recreate a more traditional form of source code for it, in which case that is the preferred form for modification, the package has source code. That means it might be DFSG-free (if it meets the other criteria). -- G. Branden Robinson | Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? Debian GNU/Linux | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount; branden@debian.org | fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck; http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | umount;sleep
Attachment:
pgph41jngXI92.pgp
Description: PGP signature