Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:13:43 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: >> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of >> modification? > > IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of "source code" > (it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and DFSG#2 mandates the > inclusion of source code.
I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of "source code". Most people would regard the source for the nv driver as source code, even though there's a version of it that would be easier to modify. >> The DFSG require the availability of source code, and it >> seems reasonable to believe that anything that can be reasonably >> modified falls into that catagory. > > A binary executable can be reasonably modified with a hex editor (warez > dudes do exactly that, in order to remove anti-copy or registration > mechanisms from proprietary programs). The classes of modification that can be performed upon a binary are highly limited. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]