Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Humberto Massa <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>What about source code that has passed an obfuscator or a transpiler?
> Could be, and probably should be, effectively prohibited in this
> very point.
It should be, but it isn't.
>>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.
Yes, but your definition still outlaws those because no 1-to-1
conversion is possible (even from JPEG to JPEG).
>>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
Well, that's easy: by the person who furnished the compiled binaries
for you. If he doesn't do any modifications, he is not a developer,
and must have obtained the source code from someone else, and so on.
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, netscape.net,
postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.