Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

[Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br>]

@ 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).

--
br,M