Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:27:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Source code" has a meaning, though not a rigid one. We mean "source
> code". We do not mean "the preferred form for making changes"; if we
> had meant that, we would have said so.
If we thought the meanings were equivalent, I'd think we'd have
picked the more succinct phrasing.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:28:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:20:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Which case are we speaking of, exactly?
> >
> > Pick one.
>
> In the case of a font generated from a METAFONT program, without
> modification of the bitmaps, the source is the complete METAFONT
> program, though not the METAFONT compiler itself.
>
> In the case of a font designed as a bitmap, the font is that bitmap.
If you're saying that for the case where the font was generated by hand
using a hex editor, the bitmap file itself is the source code. [And,
perhaps not by chance, it was "the preferred form for making changes".]
Is that where you're heading with this?
p.s. I'm not going to post for a few hours -- if only to let this thread
settle down a bit, but also to help make sure I'm reading everything
carefully.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: