Re: Migration of non-free packages to testing
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:19:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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.
> 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. [...]
> 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 [...]
Or (3), the only way *for anyone* to make changes to the work is to
hack the ROMs in binary, thus as the only option, that has to be the
preferred one.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: