On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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. > > "Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent > with the functionality of the resulting work",
What does that mean? That definition brings up two huge questions in itself: 1) What is a practical modification? 2) What does "consistent with the functionality of the resulting work" mean, anyway? I submit that these questions are even more insurmountable than the "what is source?" question. > "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. This may be true, but if the author uses a specific form to modify the work, surely that's good enough for us?[1] It seems to me that any definition of source that does not include the form that the author actually uses to create the work is fundamentally flawed.[2] Don Armstrong 1: We may decide not to package it for practical reasons as no one else can maintain it, of course. 2: It should be noted that when I say "prefered form for modification" I'm refering to the form that the author actually uses when the author modifies (or baring that, creates) the work; it has nothing to do with the form J. Random contributor would prefer. -- [this space for rent] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
