Am 13.10.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Walter Landry:
> Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Walter Landry writes:
>>> Ole Streicher wrote:
What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The
DFSG does not contain a hint here.
>>> The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'sourc
Le 14 octobre 2015 08:51:16 GMT+02:00, Ole Streicher a
écrit :
>
>
>Am 13.10.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Walter Landry:
>> Ole Streicher wrote:
>>> Walter Landry writes:
Ole Streicher wrote:
> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form?
>The
> DFSG does not contai
On 14.10.2015 10:35, Bastien Roucaries wrote:
Le 14 octobre 2015 08:51:16 GMT+02:00, Ole Streicher a
écrit :
I am not a specialist at all for Javascript, and all I try is just
to keep a Python package (with a very responsive upstream!) in a
good shape. Unfortunately, nobody with Javascript exp
> What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a
> source and what not
This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a
definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and then move
on.
I can think of several ideas:
1. Source code must not
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
> > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a
> > source and what not
>
> This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a
> definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and the
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
>
> > > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a
> > > source and what not
> >
> > This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to hav
Riley Baird
writes:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
> Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source
> > should *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the
> > most commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the on
On 15/10/15 00:50, Riley Baird wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
Francesco Poli wrote:
The alternatives you propose are vague at best.
For further details on what I think about the definition of source,
anyone interested may read my essay:
http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/
Le Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:47:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>
> I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source should
> *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the most
> commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the one found
> in the GNU G
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:26:47 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> Riley Baird
> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
> > Francesco Poli wrote:
> >
> > > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source
> > > should *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the
Riley Baird
writes:
> Okay, I guess that handling problematic cases by consensus works too.
> We can intuitively state what is and what is not source in practically
> all cases, even if we can't give a reason for it.
We should be able to give good reason for it, we certainly should not
rely on i
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:05:39 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> Riley Baird
> writes:
>
> > Okay, I guess that handling problematic cases by consensus works too.
> > We can intuitively state what is and what is not source in practically
> > all cases, even if we can't give a reason for it.
>
> We shoul
12 matches
Mail list logo
