[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: >> It's the definition of "source code" that makes the most sense. > > We are not under an obligation to have a rigid definition of "source > code".
Yes, this is one of our advantages (IMHO). > But the DFSG, because it is not a license, need not worry about such > things. We can say "source code", and then do what seems best to us > in each particular case. We have no obligation to have one single > definition of the term that is rigidly applied to every situation. Recently, there were some calls for such definitions, and lack of clear definitions was often put forward as an argument to stamp some practices as impractical. For example, treating Data and Programs differently. I don't think that clear rules are necessary (mainly because our decisions are political and of no legal relevance), and mere guidelines are sufficient. However, the current mess makes me wonder if this is the correct approach. -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, netscape.net, postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
