On Wed, 02 Mar 2005, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050227 19:05]: > > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > * Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]: > > > > Well put. I think it is arguably not "source code", however, > > > > if the source we are seeing is the result of some sed-like > > > > script which converts a sort of custom #defined MAGIC_NUMBERs > > > > to id numbers, and then removes the #definitions. > > > > > > Is there some proof that the files are created that way, or is this > > > just your assumptation? > > > > It's not either. It's a hypothetical. > > Why are you throwing hypothetical reasons into a discussion?
Because this discussion has switched to discussing what is actually source code, not whether or not the nvidia source is actually source code.[1] Furthermore, if you actually bother to read the attributions, you'll realize that I'm not the one contributing the hypothetical. > Don't you have a real problem to work on? Where I choose to spend my time is my own concern, not yours. If you dislike what I'm doing, feel free to ignore it. Furthermore, the issue of what exactly is source code and whether or not we should allow exceptions to specific classes of works is a fundamental problem that we (or at least I) have been grappling with for quite some time. While it may not interest you,[2] it most certainly is "a real problem." Don Armstrong 1: Admittedly the Subject: probably should have changed, but it's too late now. 2: And again, no one is forcing you to read -legal. [I'm only Cc:'ing you because you requested it.] -- We were at a chinese resturant. He was yelling at the waitress because there was a typo in his fortune cookie. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch31.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
