On the definition of source [Was: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG]

[Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> "Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent
> with the functionality of the resulting work",

What does that mean?

That definition brings up two huge questions in itself:

1) What is a practical modification?
2) What does "consistent with the functionality of the resulting work"
mean, anyway?

I submit that these questions are even more insurmountable than the
"what is source?" question.

> "Preferred form of modification" doesn't always cut it - the
> author's preferred form of modification may not match anyone else on
> the planet's.

This may be true, but if the author uses a specific form to modify the
work, surely that's good enough for us?[1] It seems to me that any
definition of source that does not include the form that the author
actually uses to create the work is fundamentally flawed.[2]


Don Armstrong

1: We may decide not to package it for practical reasons as no one
else can maintain it, of course.

2: It should be noted that when I say "prefered form for modification"
I'm refering to the form that the author actually uses when the author
modifies (or baring that, creates) the work; it has nothing to do with
the form J. Random contributor would prefer.
-- 
[this space for rent]

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