[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:31:36AM +0200, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le mardi 29 mai, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit: 
> > Moreover, we all know, that even providing usable binaries accompanied
> > by FOSS code, without formalized build procedures and clearly
> > specified dependencies would complicate any extension of the code,
> > thus often significantly reducing the benefit of having that code
> > under FOSS license to begin with.   As the result, mandating "open
> > code" to accompany research papers would be of limited practical
> > importance to the science due to difficulty of its adoption and
> > extension.
> I can't lay my hand on it at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the FSF
> has some definition of "source code" which means the code as used by
> the developers (not some precompiled form like a "gcc -E" or "gcc -S"),
> with the files necessary to build.

That's part of every license, such as GPL:

  The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
  for making modifications to it.  "Object code" means any non-source
  form of a work.
Bye, Mt.

Oh, I am a C programmer and I'm okay. 
I muck with indices and structs all day. 
And when it works, I shout hoo-ray. 
Oh, I am a C programmer and I'm okay.

Reply to: