Re: Preferred form of modification for binary data used in unit testing?
On 2020-07-17 18:30, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On 2020, ജൂലൈ 17 8:14:24 PM IST, Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> wrote:
>> The intended purpose is to ensure that the recipient has every
>> reasonable opportunity to modify the software in any reasonable way the
>> recipient desires. The sole purpose of the requirement for source is to
>> protect this freedom, and the requirement should not be applied
>> independently from this purpose.
>>
>> So the question becomes how does the inclusion or exclusion of the
>> binary blob, without inclusion of the full source and build process of
>> the broken version of the software used to produce the binary blob,
>> enhance or detract from the recipient's ability to produce a modified
>> version of the current, good, distributed software.
>
> Very, well put. Many times I see blind application of rules without any other consideration. The rules serve a purpose, our purpose is not to blindly serve the rules. If the rules are stopping us, we need to change them, not just adjust ourselves to the rules once written.
I fully concur with your opinions, however I'm not sure that they are
universally shared and/or clear. Otherwise, this thread wouldn't exist.
Some norms avoid the risk of "blindly serving the rules" by expressly
rejecting that, for example Article 11 GDPR [1] holds that the GDPR is
not self-serving.
[1]
https://gdpr.eu/article-11-what-personal-data-can-a-controller-process-without-identification/
Reply to: