Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Frankly, I don't see that that definition has the flaws you've claimed > it has. [For example, if there are equivalent representations and one > is the preferred form then any of them are the preferred form.]
Well, Ted said that there was a disaster in progress. That might be a flaw. > Anyways, status quo is: some of us use a definition of "source code" > which you disagree with. Sure, that's fine by me; you can go ahead and use that definition, just don't presume that it's been decided by authority in Debian. It's one plausible definition, and it's an excellent place to start.
