Re: transformations of "source code"
Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not
>> impossible to reverse formats.
> I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is.
Perhaps so, but in that case you should probably remove the bit about
availability of encryption keys as well. After all, the line between
them is fairly fuzzy (think of css reading software for an example).
Obfuscated but lossless transformations needn't be any easier to get
clear than encryption.
>> Perhaps you could expand the idea of a "key" to include anything
>> necessary to reverse the process, and say that if the recipient can't
>> reasonably be expected to have the key (or whatever word you want to
>> use) it must be provided.
> This, I fear, would soon result in anybody who just wanted to distribute
> pre-compiled binaries into providing an entire Linux distribution.
> After all, if they have to distribute tar and gzip beside the source
> tarball, why not a toolchain as well? How about a text editor for
> actually making modifications to the preferred form?
Presumably one could reasonably be expected to have (or have access
to) a computer and OS, as well as tar & gzip. But yes, it's a fuzzy
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03