Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Terry Hancock wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I don't think so. Machine-generated HTML is not source, at least not
> > until it becomes the form that is actually preferred for making
> > modifications to the work...
> I think you have to recognize some kind of pragmatic limit to these
> kinds of restrictions. The HTML certainly can be modified, and a lot
> more people know HTML than some ad hoc XML format. It may well be the
> case that the HTML would be the preferred form for modification for
> anyone but the original author.
Now I wonder: I've got some texts which I wrote in Microsoft Word and
then converted to PDF. While I can create a more-or-less useful HTML
version, I prefer to work on them in the proprietary Word format.
Suppose Debian would like to package the PDF files, what would be
the source? Word? The HTML? The PDF itself?
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/