Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
> On Oct 31, Francesco Poli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > IMHO, DFSG#2 refers to source code, as is usually defined, that is to
> > say, as in the GNU GPL v2.
> No, it does not. As usual, you are just inventing new requirements which
> are not specified by the DFSG.
Perhaps. But how can software be considered 'free' if no
useful source code is available?
Obviously there's no single definition for all cases. I know people
who enjoy programming in Postscript. They would consider the .ps
file source. But if I release a .ps file, it would be output from
LaTeX and so it seems reasonable to insist that the software isn't
free until the .tex file is available.
Would you be happy if Debian main was filled with assembly listings?
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/