On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org> wrote: > 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 wasn't trying to add confusion, sorry if it seemed this way. > 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. It is a commonly used and accepted definition, but as evidenced by this conversation and the others which have occurred on Debian recently, it is too vague to be easily applied. > 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 That's a good essay! Hopefully, something like that will become the reference that Debian actually uses in the future. I have some concerns, though: > The preferred form of a work for making modifications to it. This fails to address the issues raised earlier in this thread: What about CVS headers? What about patches created using quilt? > The person whose preference should be taken into account is the > one who last modified the version of the work under consideration. > If he/she prefers to modify the work in a given form, then that > form is the source code for the work. Company A writes a program in C++ and gives binaries away under a free license to Person B. Person B has excellent knowledge of how to edit binary executables. It would follow that the binary executable is source. > One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of > the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making > modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual > source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the > existing ones. I write a program in C++ and release the binaries under a free license. The binaries are not the source form. But five years later, when I lose the USB which contained the only copy of the C++ code, the binaries become source.
Attachment:
pgpHxwjscmTXM.pgp
Description: PGP signature