> 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: 1. Source code must not be the output of anything. Everything, however trivial or impractical must be generated. 2. Source code must be the preferred form for modification of a work. Preferred is from the perspective of the person or people that substantially created the work. Generated outputs are okay if they are the form which the maintainer actually uses to make modifications. 3. Source code is code which a person who has reasonable knowledge of the programming language being used would not find it complicated to make substantial modifications to. It is immaterial what the maintainer actually does. 4. Source code is code which a person who has reasonable knowledge of the programming language being used would have the ability to understand the general operation of. 5. Source code is that which is not machine code. Obfuscated javascript is source code. 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!
Attachment:
pgpgV5Vd4P0De.pgp
Description: PGP signature