Re: Migration of non-free packages to testing
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:43:58PM +0700, Robert Lemmen 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.
> > 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.
The most useful definition for source code that I have seen is that used,
e.g., in the GPL. "The source code for a work means the preferred form of
the work for making modifications to it."
What this means when the program's original source code is not available is
unclear. "preferred" among the forms which actually exist, or "preferred"
in an ideal situation?