Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make
> > it harder to understand.
> > The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source. The
> > latter is obfuscation, and is not source at all. Assuming what Florian
> > says is accurate, Java bytecode is not source any more than C code with
> > comments stripped, which would imply that Debian should not be accepting
> > it as source.
> So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG free,
> but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine for main?
Yes; as noble a goal as is writing good, well-commented code, that's not
what the DFSG is about; it's about free software, including source code.
If you write a well-commented program, and remove the comments in the copy
you give me, you havn't given me the source at all. Why should Debian
consider obfuscated code sufficient for DFSG#2?