Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> 
> >> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free.  If
> >> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software.
> >
> > Does this mean that a program written in C is only free if the user you give
> > it to is fluent in C ? Or can get someone fluent in C to make modifications
> > for him ? 
> 
> No.  It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom.
> C is often used as source.  Obfuscated C is never used as source.
> Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source.

What about a language that is not widely known ? And where do you put the
limit ? I have to disagree with you about this, the GPL speaks about the
prefered form of modification, not that it has to be readable by everyone. So,
if i program something in unlambda or brainfuck or whatever, then this is the
prefered form of modification, since there is no other form more easily
modifiable, and this is no problem for the GPL. The same goes for a a set of
hole-cards carrying some age old program that someone may have in a closet and
chose to release under the GPL.

The same goes for code that was written direct in assembly, or direct in
machine language, there is no other version, and it is thus the prefered form
of modification, so it is fine by the GPL.

> Why do you think it's fun to repeatedly say "Ha ha!  I gotcha this
> time, you wascally wegal-poster!  You gave an example, but if I
> pretend it's a rigid law, to be applied blindly as often as possible,
> it makes no sense!"?  Doesn't this game get boring after a while?

Well, just wait, i will soon come here to debian-legal with the problem
sourunding miboot and its non-free boot sector pilfered from age old apple
floppies.

Friendly,

Sven Luther