Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Paul Wise wrote:
> [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
> the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
> source files are TeX documents.

Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it
means by source code?

I think one is deep into language lawyerism and death by dictionaries
if you want to say those PS files aren't source code.  To do that
needs more detail than exists in the current DFSG.  The DFSG text and
two alternative definitions from dict are shown below: one would
accept the PS files, the other would reject them.

I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to
reconstruct, I'd still let them stay.


Just to remind myself: [http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines]

    2. Source Code

    The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
    in source code as well as compiled form.

WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

  source code
       n : program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be
           translated by a compiler or interpreter or assembler into
           the object code for a particular computer before
           execution

The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) [foldoc]:

  source code
       
          <language, programming> (Or "source", or rarely "source
          language") The form in which a computer program is written by
          the programmer.  Source code is written in some formal
          programming language which can be compiled automatically into
          {object code} or {machine code} or executed by an
          {interpreter}.
       
          (1995-01-05)
       

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