Re: Bug#158529: vcg does not have a usable license
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#158529: vcg does not have a usable license
- From: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>
- Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 13:42:20 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20020901124220.GA2386@rano.org>
- In-reply-to: <87it1rxmvy.fsf@becket.becket.net>
- References: <522555946.1030477944642.JavaMail.root@dexter.okstate.edu> <20020827211519.GB20353@ivywell.screaming.net> <20020827.181919.71083231.wlandry@ucsd.edu> <20020831000100.GI7525@hoiho.nz.lemon-computing.com> <87it1rxmvy.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net>:
> No, no, no. The preferred form is the preferred form for the author,
> for *anyone*. It's what I would want to have, it's the real, actual,
> genuine source.
>
> The preferred form is found by considering the *actual* forms which
> exist--and seeing which one of them is *actually* preferred. The
> uglified C code is *not* actually preferred, by anyone, to the
> pre-uglified source.
However, if someone has reformated the uglified source and then
corrected some security bugs in it or done extensive testing on a
binary created from it then you might prefer to introduce a new
feature using the uglified source rather than the pre-uglified source.
Perhaps there is general agreement that a file derived from an
uglified/obfuscated file may in some circumstances become the
preferrred form for modification, but there is bound to be
disagreement about how to characterise those circumstances.
Edmund
Reply to: