On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > Obfuscated C code is obviously not source, by any sensible definition-- > any "definition" of the word "source code" that results in obfuscated > C code being called "source" is wrong. Since the GPL's definition > of "source" is reasonable (in fact, it's one of the only robust > definitions of the word that I'm aware of), it handles this. > > Obfuscated code does not satisfy DFSG#2. I hope nobody seriously > disagrees with this. I invite you all to read the source of rivafb and nv. The source is perfectly legible; it's just hard to deduce what the magic numbers mean. Similar to how reading the radeon driver would be for someone who isn't familiar with graphics drivers. If this doesn't satisfy DFSG #2, please file a serious bug against xfree86 for policy violation; the nv driver is obviously totally non-free. I'll then leave it to you to explain to something like 40% of new computer owners why their machines don't work with Debian.
Description: Digital signature