Re: transformations of 'source code'
Branden Robinson said:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
>> What sort of transformations are permitted?
> I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
> recover, or with which the key is provided.
> This definition has a few advantages:
> * It's technology-neutral. cpio vs. tar, gzip vs. bzip, WAVE vs. PCM
> (for audio files), who cares?
> * "Lossless" is important; it means you can recover the original data
> * Encryption is fine (it might be wise, necessary, or even unavoidable
> depending on the distribution channel), but it is the distributor's
> responsibility to ensure that the recipient gets the decryption key.
Is indent(1) lossless? Should it be considered a transformation? It is
certainly a trivial "modified work".
The tr example (tr A-Z a-z source.c > newsource.c) is irreversible
(lossy), but (assuming the source names don't collide under this
transformation) produces the same binary, and is (probably) just as
readable/editable as the original. (MyVariable -> myvariable)