Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Matthew Garrett: > >> There's two main issues here. >> >> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of >> modification? >> >> I don't believe so, > > We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees > with you.
We had a GR that stated that everything in main must include "source code". That's not the same thing in the slightest. > I think the last time the nv reference popped up, nobody could confirm > that the source code has been deliberately obfuscated. It seems to be > the real thing, but there is not enough public documentation to make > any modifications which change the way the driver interacts with the > hardware. Fine. I'll attempt to obtain confirmation that the obscure hex constants aren't the original and preferred form for modification. > I think it's not acceptable to yse pregenerated files to prevent > software from entering contrib. (Look at all the Java programs, for > instance.) If there's a povray dependency, the software cannot be > included in main. Yes, but *WHY* do you think that? Christ. This isn't a difficult conceptual issue. "I think that source has to be the preferred form of modification BECAUSE IT IS DAMNIT" is not a convincing argument. If there existed reasonable ways of modifying Java bytecode to create new derivative works, then I'd have fewer qualms about shipping Java bytecode without a compiler. But there aren't, so I do. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]