Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote: [...]
>> 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.
> Are you sure it's the most accepted? I didn't find numbers on it.
I have been on this list for a decade, and I have not seen any other
definitions that have any significant support. Perhaps other forums
have different makeups, but on debian-legal I have not seen any other
cohesive approaches. I have seen plenty of people say things like "it
is POSSIBLE to modify it, therefore it is source". But that makes the
source requirement a no-op.
This is in contrast to, for example, which licenses people prefer.
Some people prefer GPL, some prefer MIT, some prefer BSD, etc.