Quoting Julien Puydt (2021-10-10 14:34:34) > Le sam. 9 oct. 2021 à 18:52, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> a écrit : > > Quoting Julien Puydt (2021-10-09 18:48:07) > > > Le sam. 9 oct. 2021 à 17:40, Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> a > > > écrit > > > > On 2021-10-09 08:53:57 +0200 (+0200), Yadd wrote: [...] > > > > > If you really consider minified files as binary, there's a > > > > > room for creating a lot of RC bugs > > > > > > > > The more appropriate question is whether Debian considers > > > > minified files to be source code, or a compiled form. To > > > > needlessly quote DFSG §2: "The program must include source code, > > > > and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled > > > > form." > > > > > > Minified code isn't code in a form meant/supposed to be modified > > > by hand, so it's not source code. > > > > Right. But stating that is not helping much. > > > > It is not source code. > > > > It is not binary code. > > It was helping: it's definitely binary code, since it's not source > code! > > There was the case years ago of the smarteiffel compiler. It was > supposed to be open source, but upstream only released C code. And > that was bad, because it wasn't what *they* worked with: they had > eiffel sources, and the C code was preprocessed and didn't > allow/permit bootstrapping. It took some discussion to convince them > to release the true sources. > > The situation is the same here: minified code isn't source. Trying to > claim it's not really binary because it's JavaScript and not some > bytecode (for a virtual or actual hardware) is disingenuous. > > If that's not what developer work with, that's not source, end of the > discussion. I agree with you that minified code rarely if ever "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" as defined by GPL licenses. GNU definition for the term "source code" is however irrelevant for the GR in preparation. If you mean to say that Debian has a clar definition on what "source code" means, then it is helpful if you point to that clear definition. Similarly, if you mean to say that some judge somewhere has made a court ruling which may affect the outcome of this GR in preparation, then it is helpful that you clarify how that might be. If you mean to say that "source code" has multiple meanings and you therefore recommend that they avoid it on the ballot, then it is helpful to say so. What is relevant is that those who want to make a GR vote express clearly what it is they want us all to vote on. Yes, they can ask us all to vote on changing our constitution to redefine what "source code" means. I doubt that is what you want to do, though. It seems to me that they really want a less radical change. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature