Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > All of which is completely irrelevant to the question of "what > definition(s) are we using for 'source code'".
We aren't using any particular single definition of "source code". We have never in the past, and we aren't now. Nothing has changed. "Source code" means, in the context of the DFSG, just what it always has meant. "Source code" has a meaning, though not a rigid one. We mean "source code". We do not mean "the preferred form for making changes"; if we had meant that, we would have said so. What value is there in finding a rigid definition? It seems to me that the only value would be that it would box us in needlessly. We might come up with a case that we look at and say, "well, that looks like source code, but it doesn't meet the test of our rigid definition", and then we would be stuck. Better not to have the rigid definition, so we can say, "that looks like source code". Thomas
