On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:09:00 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > 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? It's true that there's no clear definition of the term "source code" in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for quite a long time. AFAICT, the common interpretation of the DFSG assumes that "source code" means "the preferred form for making modifications". > > I think one is deep into language lawyerism and death by dictionaries > if you want to say those PS files aren't source code. IMHO, they aren't, if it's true that they are not the preferred form for making modifications. [...] > I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to > reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. I instead think that the actual source code (= preferred form for modifications) should be searched for. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpgvUf_AKhfR.pgp
Description: PGP signature