Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of "source
> > code" (it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and DFSG#2
> > mandates the inclusion of source code.
> I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of "source
As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
Until that time, the "prefered form for modification" seems to be the
best definition of source code that we've got. [If you've got a better
definition, by all means, propose it.]
> Most people would regard the source for the nv driver as source
> code, even though there's a version of it that would be easier to
ITYM "I would"; it's not clear at all that "most people would regard
[it] as source."
> The classes of modification that can be performed upon a binary are
> highly limited.
You can do anything you want to a binary. There are just things that
are more difficult to do to binary files.
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis
far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored
effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all
the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting
on it--and is just as likely to succeed.
-- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer