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

Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info> 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
> code".

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
> modify.

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.

Don Armstrong

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

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: