Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 17:50]:
>> > Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >
>> > >Imagine a source where all variables are named v<number> and all
>> > >functions f<number>. Is that still free? Where do we draw the line?
>> > >When does source stop to be bad style and start to become obfuscated
>> > >and unacceptable for main?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > This has been handled before. Some people strip all comments and
>> > unnecessary white space, and make all symbol names meaningless numbers.
>> > In general it's done by a program, and they don't actually use that
>> > version of the code for their own work. Thus, it's not the preferred
>> > source code under the GPL.
>>
>> "preferred form for modification" is _only_ a GPL-term and not part of
>> the SC.
>
> You can keep saying that all you want, but it remains the most commonly
> used and most functional definition for "source code" available, and I
> fail to see the motive behind objecting to its use as a metric for
> determining whether something is source. (For example, it clearly comes
> to the correct answer above, in the case of machine-obfuscated code.)
>
> --
> Glenn Maynard
I'm not objecting. I'm just pointing out that going by the GPL
definition means all firmware currently in the kernel can't be
distributed at all, not even non-free.
That certinly isn't in the users intrest.
MfG
Goswin
