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

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

Le mercredi 30 mai, Martin Quinson a écrit:
> 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.

I was thinking about something longer and mentioning whatever is
required to build said sources :-/

Snark on #debian-science

Reply to: