Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
- To: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 383481@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>, ola@opalsys.net, brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de, kyle@debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
- From: md@Linux.IT (md)
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 02:53:45 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20061101015345.GA3736@bongo.bofh.it>
- Mail-followup-to: md@Linux.IT, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>, 383481@bugs.debian.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>, ola@opalsys.net, brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de, kyle@debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Reply-to: md@Linux.IT (md), 383481@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <20061031234452.02ed49c7.frx@firenze.linux.it>
- References: <20061030155213.GA31839@opalsys.net> <878xiwpqoj.fsf@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <20061031160015.GA28913@opalsys.net> <20061031162638.GA483@srcf.ucam.org> <20061031234452.02ed49c7.frx@firenze.linux.it>
On Oct 31, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> IMHO, DFSG#2 refers to source code, as is usually defined, that is to
> say, as in the GNU GPL v2.
No, it does not. As usual, you are just inventing new requirements which
are not specified by the DFSG.
> Deliberately obfuscated code is absolutely against the spirit of Free
> Software.
But if it is X11-licensed then it is still free software, which is what
matters here.
--
ciao,
Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Reply to: