❦ 14 avril 2015 11:00 +1000, Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> : >> > I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web >> > service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better in >> > every dimension than gcc can achieve, we still wouldn't use it for >> > our binaries (at least not unless it were available as free software >> > that we could host ourselves). What makes JavaScript worthy of >> > special treatment? >> >> It is an interpreted language and "compiled" source can sometimes be >> considered as a pristine source too (for example, concatenation). > > No, a concatenated bundle – the compiled form – is not the preferred > form for making modifications to the work. So it's not the source > form. Sorry, that's not always true. The concatenated form may not be the preferred form for making modifications for the upstream author but for a user, this may be perfectly valid. The prefered form of modification of the derivative may become the concatenated form. Or the selected form. License-wise, those derivatives are still perfectly valid since usually, all this is MIT-licensed. If you take bootstrap for example, the upstream preferred form for making modifications is here: https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/tree/master/less But many people just starts of the generated bootstrap.css (which is generated and concatenated but not minified) because it is perfectly valid and understandable CSS. And they do modification to that when they want to modify a small aspect. They don't bother starting from the whole LESS files (especially if the remaining of their project is not using LESS). They may also remove parts they don't use for optimization purpose. That's very hard to rebuild what they got from the original LESS files. -- I'll burn my books. -- Christopher Marlowe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature