Re: distributing precompiled binaries

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: [...]
> The argument used to justify the claim that the DFSG requires source for PDF
> and PS files is that PDF and PS are programming languages.  [...]

I asked that we not have this argument here and now, because this case
involves applets under the GPL, so the PDF-source problem doesn't
matter, but if the alternative is that some will invent incorrect and
weak strawmen arguments to fight, I might as well try to straighten
this record.

I thought the argument used is that PDF and PS are produced by
compiling some document source code to some object code.  Whether or
not they are programs seems irrelevant.  Indeed, this previous email
says as much: "It's just another computer-readable translation, which
a human can also treat as such, such a very inconvenient one. And
while different compilations of a program are in practise very
similar, the only thing one can expect is that they produce binary
that do the same thing" -- Bernhard R. Link, 29 March, this thread.

So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument
come from?  References, please!

Thanks,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct