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

Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?

Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:38:34 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > 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.
> In cases where the PostScript file is generated from LaTeX code, the
> latter is probably the source form (again by the "preferred form"
> definition).

That's what I would think. But consider this example. I write
texts in a homebrewed XML format, which makes little sense for
anyone but me. Obviously I prefer to use that format. I have an
XSLT transformation to make it HTML, and I distribute that HTML
version of the texts. Is that source? 

Should a programmer who writes FORTRAN release that code, or the
automated conversion to C?

I guess it's similar to the old XCF versus JPEG/GIF/PNG debate.
I would say it depends on the intended use of the file. If the
layers and other information in the XCF is no longer relevant, the
PNG is just as much the source as the XCF. If it's likely that
people want to edit


Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Reply to: