Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > alternatively, the uglified files are GPL-ed, so it is permissable to > de-uglify them :-)
> depending on how hairy they are, it might be no more than a few hours > work with gnu indent and vi (s/vi/your preferred text editor/) It's not as bad as it could be (one is going to need perl too, I think), but 1] one would end up with code without comments (perhaps not very serious; some people code mostly without comments themselves which does not in itself make their source less free). 2] it seems that some amount of macro expansion has already been done on the uglified sources. 3] all identifiers with file scope have been renamed to foobar187 or something like that. Would take some amount of reverse engineering to make readable. 4] worst: one would be at a loss when a new upstream version appeared which used other uglifying gimmicks. Effectively, de-uglifying would amount to a project fork, so the maintainer would need to be really determined to continue the maintenance without any upstream support. -- Henning Makholm http://www.diku.dk/students/makholm
