On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of "source > > code" (it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and DFSG#2 > > mandates the inclusion of source code. > > I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of "source > code".
As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code. Until that time, the "prefered form for modification" seems to be the best definition of source code that we've got. [If you've got a better definition, by all means, propose it.] > Most people would regard the source for the nv driver as source > code, even though there's a version of it that would be easier to > modify. ITYM "I would"; it's not clear at all that "most people would regard [it] as source." > The classes of modification that can be performed upon a binary are > highly limited. You can do anything you want to a binary. There are just things that are more difficult to do to binary files. Don Armstrong -- The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed. -- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
