Riley Baird <bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch> writes:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 > Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> 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 one > > found in the GNU GPL license. > > It is a commonly used and accepted definition, but as evidenced by > this conversation and the others which have occurred on Debian > recently, it is too vague to be easily applied. That's not true. There are many cases that are clarified by that definition, to the point of clear resolution. This is a big improvement over no consensus definition. It is demonstrably not “too vague to be easily applied”. You may want a definition that is easily applied to *all* problematic cases, but that's unattainable I fear. If you're looking for a perfect definition of some legal concept, you're dealing with the wrong species. Meanwhile, let's use the consesnus definition of “source form of the work” which has been very helpful to date. Some problematic cases will of course remain, and we will deal with them as they arise. -- \ “Come on, if your religion is so vulnerable that a little bit | `\ of disrespect is going to bring it down, it's not worth | _o__) believing in, frankly.” —Terry Gilliam, 2005-01-18 | Ben Finney
