Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> 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.]
"Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent with the functionality of the resulting work", or something along those lines. Yes, it's horribly fuzzy, but it's a horribly fuzzy area. "Preferred form of modification" doesn't always cut it - the author's preferred form of modification may not match anyone else on the planet's. >> 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." If you don't regard it as source, then you should file a bug requesting that it be removed from main. Despite the moderately involved thread we had on this in the past, nobody has done so yet. >> 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. Feel free to insert the word "practically" there. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
