❦ 14 avril 2015 10:39 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> : >>>>> I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web >>>>> service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better >>>>> in every dimension than gcc can achieve, we still wouldn't use it >>>>> for our binaries (at least not unless it were available as free >>>>> software that we could host ourselves). What makes JavaScript >>>>> worthy of special treatment? >>>> >>>> It is an interpreted language and "compiled" source can sometimes be >>>> considered as a pristine source too (for example, concatenation). >>> >>> No, a concatenated bundle – the compiled form – is not the preferred >>> form for making modifications to the work. So it's not the source >>> form. >> >> Sorry, that's not always true. The concatenated form may not be the >> preferred form for making modifications for the upstream author but >> for a user, this may be perfectly valid. The prefered form of >> modification of the derivative may become the concatenated form. Or >> the selected form. License-wise, those derivatives are still perfectly >> valid since usually, all this is MIT-licensed. > > Licensing is not the only reason for Debian packaging rules.
I know.
When the license says that the derivative should be redistributed with
the source in the prefered form of modification, every derivative use
the same prefered form of modification. When the license says nothing
about that, there the prefered form of modification may change from one
derivative to the other. This is the case for CSS and Javascript.
I am only trying to explain the situation, I have the slight impression
that I am a target here.
--
The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference
between a mermaid and a seal.
-- Mark Twain
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
