Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written >> without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have >> been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they >> work. Both are released under the same license. Both provide exactly the >> same freedoms to our users. >> >> How is one of these free and the other non-free? > > One provided source, the other did not, and Debian considers having source > fundamental to having a free program.
"Because it is, damnit"? > Take it a step further, and say we have two drivers: one written in heavily- > optimized, uncommented assembly, and one written in C, compiled with > optimizations and disassembled. They look pretty much the same; as you say, > both provide the "same freedoms to our users". Is disassembly output of a > compiled program "source" to you? Is one free and the other non-free? If the ease of modification is equivalent in both cases, then I'd consider them to be equally free. If it's impractical for anyone to modify either, then I'd consider them non-free. "Free software" that provides no practical way of excercising its freedoms is not something that we should be supporting or holding up as an example to others. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]