Marco d'Itri wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> No, it does not. As usual, you are just inventing new requirements which > >> are not specified by the DFSG. > >Perhaps. But how can software be considered 'free' if no > >useful source code is available? > By following the DFSG.
The DFSG is a set of guidelines that need interpretation when dealing with specific situations. It's not a self-contained legal code. > >Obviously there's no single definition for all cases. I know people > This is not a good reason for inventing ad hoc definitions. True. It is however a pretty good reason to apply definitions that have consensus in the relevant circles. If most people would prefer the "real C" over the disassembled machine code, then the real C is the source. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
