Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:06:12PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > Nobody, including the FSF, defines object form as "not the preferred form > > for modification." Just because the source code IS that format does not > > bean that everything that is not source code is object code. > > Can you remind me of the advantages of NOT interpreting as "object form" > as "any form other than the preferred form for modification"? > > This simple approach appeals to me, not least because it makes the GNU > GPL more easily applicable to things that aren't software: > > source form = preferred form for modification of the Work > object form = any other form of the Work
It seems foolish for us to declare this definitively when I don't think we've thought through all the possible consequences. I do think that what you say is the right idea; I'm just not confident that we won't realize someday that there really is some third category. Thomas
