@ 31/05/2004 02:21 : wrote Glenn Maynard :
2. Source code "The source for a work is a machine-readable form that
is appropriate for modifying the work or inspecting its structure and
inner workings."
Is there a benefit to using a different definition than the GPL?
You've said it below. The "preferred form for modification" is vague as
to "whom does prefer it"? "Appropriate" is a far less ambiguous term,
and the rest of the phrase ("for modifying ... and inspecting ...")
makes it IMVHO perfectly unambiguous.
One case where this seems different is images. For example, I have
several PNGs, generated by Photoshop. The PNG itself is appropriate
for modifying the work, but it's not the preferred form for
modification. Going by feel, it's not the source of the work at all.
But it is (the source), according to the definition phrased above. Or
not? It's possible that information is lost (like layers?) Hmmmm.
This also reveals a case that hasn't been resolved: do we expect
source for PNGs, when such a form exists? In practice, we don't, and
I tend to classify it as "that would be nice, but it's not a
worthwhile battle". Another major case of this (and one which is less
ambiguous) is fonts. It would be nice to find a consensus on these,
rather than having a new set of guidelines that still doesn't address
the issue.
(I'll admit that "I don't want Debian to have to drop most of its
high- quality fonts" is probably a major factor in my opinion on
this, which sounds somewhat like "I don't want Debian to have to drop
Netscape".)
Hehe. Anyway, I think in another thread we concluded (or I concluded ???
makes a lot of difference) that .ttf font files and the metafont format
are completely interchangeable, because you can represent the same
information in both formats. IIRC, the "more-open" metafont format is
more expressive, too, so, there is no need to worry about fonts.
--
br,M
