* Jonas Smedegaard <firstname.lastname@example.org> [160711 07:08]:
> Quoting Pirate Praveen (2016-07-11 10:30:59)
> > On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 19:41:17 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > The requirement of source format of redistributed code is not about
> > > it being possible/easy to edit by those receiving itÂ¹, but about it
> > > being in the format preferred by _upstream_ to edit - e.g. for
> > > passing patches upstream.
I have to disagree with this. The requirement for "preferred form of
modification" was explicitly to allow the recipient of the software the
freedom and ability to modify the software, not to force a particular
workflow (e.g. upstream's workflow) on the recipient, or require the
recipient to send patches back to upstream (which fails the dissident
My interpretation of "preferred form" is _any_ (explicitly not "the")
form which a significant percentage of persons who have experience
modifying that kind of software would agree that the given form is as
easy to modify as any other form, modulo some level of personal
preference. Using upstream's preferred form is not required in order to
satisfy the license's preferred form.
Without this flexibility, any use of Allman style indenting and braces
completely fails the "preferred form" test. :-P
Free software encourages, but does not require, giving back to the free
software community. Free software _does_ require giving the recipient
equal footing to modify the software.