On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:15:12 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote: > I think it would be massive negligence for the project to accept as > source something which it knows has been obfuscated. If that's the > case, I'm rather disgusted. It's hard to take a project seriously > which claims to require source, but whistles and looks the other way > when given something that is obviously not source, because it wants > that particular piece of software more than it wants to stick to its > founding principles. If Debian is going to drop its principles and > loosen the Social Contract, so be it, but don't try to hide it by > pretending obfuscated code is source.
I really hope Debian is *not* going to drop its principles.
If there is evidence that this driver code is not directly modified by
its maintainer, but is instead generated by a filter (i.e. an
obfuscator) from a more comfortable form, then this form is the real
source code. If this is the case, we are not given the actual source to
this driver and we should seek clarification from upstream and ask for
the actual source.
P.S.: just a note to say that I agree with basically everything said so
far by Glenn Maynard in this sub-thread.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpmyKk3PNfuJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
