Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 07:01:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> "Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent with
> the functionality of the resulting work", or something along those
> lines. Yes, it's horribly fuzzy, but it's a horribly fuzzy area.
> "Preferred form of modification" doesn't always cut it - the author's
> preferred form of modification may not match anyone else on the
(I'm assuming by "author" you mean "the person modifying and redistributing
the program", and not "the original author"; one of the biggest strengths
of "preferred form for modification" is that it doesn't break down when the
source form evolves into something else that the original author hadn't
thought of, and--like the rest of the GPL--doesn't give anyone special
It doesn't matter if it matches anyone else on the planet. If I honestly
prefer to compile C to assembly, ditch the C code and hack on assembler,
then that's my source. It's source even if I'm the only person on the
planet who prefers that form. If you ask for source, and I give you a
source form in a scripting language that nobody but me can understand,
and you don't like it, that's just too bad--if it's really the form I
prefer to modify the program, then it really is source.
Practicalities aren't a primary issue. If it's not a practical form for
modification, it's probably not preferred by anyone, either--but if I really
do prefer an "unpractical" form to modify a program, then it's still my
source, and your definition is wrong.
So, I think your complaint about "preferred form" isn't a bug, and I don't
see any benefit to your definition.