[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

@ 26/04/2004 18:00 : wrote Florian Weimer :

Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> writes:

Something starting in the lines of: <what is in angle brackets is not
part of the draft draft>

The Debian Project defines as Source Code for any work the Form that
may be assumed by the work, in which the Debian Project prefers to
make modifications to the work. Trivial examples of Source Code are:
.c/.h/Makefile files to trivial projects written exclusively in the C
programming language; those plus configure/config.test to
automake-generated projects;.dpr/.pas to Pascal language projects;
<.... can do a lot of examples here, maybe stating that the exemples
are not limitating>.

What about source code that has passed an obfuscator or a transpiler?
Could be, and probably should be, effectively prohibited in this very point.

Two forms of the same work are deemed interchangeable if in a normal
Debian system, they can be, without any loss of information,
transformed from one form to the other and back, using at most <some
number>3 command line commands, <or some number/15 clicks in a
graphical, non-automatable program??>, requiring of the user no
knowledge respecting to its form, content or structure, and requiring
no further installation of packages not available in Debian itself.

This outlaws data stored in lossy compression formats.
No. This will only make data stored in lossy compression formats not the Source Code when the source code is non-lossy-compression formatted. Counter-example: my camera spits out JPEG images. This is the Source Code for any images I do using it.

Would this help??

To me it illustrates that "The source code for a work means the
preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." isn't so
bad as a definition after all. 8-)

I am trying to make it a definition... because it is not! Preferred by whom? Under what terms? Can I change the preference? I like more to modify PNGs than XBMs. But my co-maintainer likes to edit his XBMs in vi! The problem I see with the definition above is... it's not a definition, really (more of an *indefinition* heheh).


Reply to: