On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a > > source and what not > > This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a > definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and then move > on. > > I can think of several ideas: [...] > If you have any other ideas, submit them. If you think that one of > these definitions is too vague, explain and suggest an improvement. > Also, if you agree with one of these definitions, say so! Riley, please do not add confusion to the matter. I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source should *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the most commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the one found in the GNU GPL license. The alternatives you propose are vague at best. For further details on what I think about the definition of source, anyone interested may read my essay: http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissource.html I hope this helps. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpLPxDTpvs9G.pgp
Description: PGP signature