On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:27:29AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > And given the package with which we have been provided, that is the > > obfuscated > > C. > > I think you're the only programmer I've ever seen claim that obfuscated > source is a preferred form for modification. It's perfectly clear from > the author's text that the obfuscated source is not intended to be > modifiable, however.
Given the alternatives, it is the preferred form. > > The definition of source is "the preferred form of the work for making > > modifications", selected from those forms which are available to you. > > You're the one amending "selected from those forms which are available > to you." The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of > source, but it's not the GPL's. I knew someone would come up with that. There is however no other reasonable interpretation of the GPL possible. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then I can immediately prevent you from distributing, say, gcc by going through the sources, improving the comments, and refusing to distribute my new version at all. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Make a wish, it might come true.
