On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:06:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > The tr example (tr A-Z a-z source.c > newsource.c) is irreversible > > (lossy), but (assuming the source names don't collide under this > > transformation) produces the same binary, and is (probably) just as > > readable/editable as the original. (MyVariable -> myvariable) > > I suggest actually trying this on some real-world code. A > garden-variety X client, for example. It likely won't even compile. > > If it's lossy, it can't be transformation; instead it is modfication.
I'd just like to point you at what I said elsewhere: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Basically the forms can be judged according to their purpose. The source form is the preferred form for making modifications. The object form is the form suitable for use in the intended function of the work, and an "encoded or translated" form which retains the meaning of the original source (i.e. it is still sufficient to achieve the object of the original source) should be OK to distribute, provided that the translation or encoding is reversible. Non-reversible (i.e. obfuscated or encrypted in such a way that the recipient cannot recover useful source) should not be allowed. I'm just slightly stuck on defining exactly why obfuscation (which does retain meaning) is not OK but (in my view at least) translation into a foreign language (which retains meaning but, whilst reversible, is not quite losslessly so) is OK. I don't think that losslessness is the right criterion, rather something connected to the meaning of the source and the achievability of the source's object. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Try to value useful qualities in one who loves you.
