Re: Non-source Javascript files in upstream source

[Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>]

Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> writes:

> Hi Ben,
>
> On Samstag, 3. Mai 2014, Ben Finney wrote:
> > As far as I understand it, that phrase [“preferred form of
> > modification”] doesn't make sense.
> > 
> > My understanding of the FTP team's operating policy for what
> > constitutes source for a work is: the preferred form of the work for
> > making modifications to it.
> > 
> > Is that what you meant?
>
> care to explain the difference? 

We're not interested in what form a *modification* takes (if it even
makes sense to talk about a “form of modification”, which doesn't seem
coherent in the context). We're interested in what form of the *work* is
the source form.

That is, to answer the question “what is the source form of the work”,
we need a definition that answers in terms of “such-and-so form of the
work”.

To answer that question, an answer that talks about “form of
modification” doesn't line up; at least, I can't make it coherent
without changing the wording.

So, that's why I'm suggesting we use the GPL's phrase to answer that
same question: “the preferred form of the work for making modifications
to it”, which is AIUI what the ftp-team already uses to define the
source form of a work.

I suspect that definition is what is meant here, but I'd rather we not
need to guess, and I'd rather we not use a divergent definition that
isn't already widely understood if we don't need to.

-- 
 \      “Nullius in verba” (“Take no-one's word for it”) —motto of the |
  `\                                   Royal Society, since 1663-06-30 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney