[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
>   stream.
> * 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)


Reply to: