On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:02:50PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote: > Although the DFSG do not envisage the issue, the GPL > does tackle it: "The source code for a work means the > preferred form of the work for making modifications to > it". I am aware the DFSG !== the GPL, nevertheless the > GPL is obviously as good a definition of free software > as any, and whichever your sensibility, open-source or
Obfuscated C code is obviously not source, by any sensible definition-- any "definition" of the word "source code" that results in obfuscated C code being called "source" is wrong. Since the GPL's definition of "source" is reasonable (in fact, it's one of the only robust definitions of the word that I'm aware of), it handles this. Obfuscated code does not satisfy DFSG#2. I hope nobody seriously disagrees with this. (As an exception, since somebody will most likely point it out if I don't, code which is actually authored in an obfuscated form does; for example, a package containing submissions to obfuscated source contests. That's the actual, honest source form of that software. The GPL's definition, incidentally, handles this case elegantly as well.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
