On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:11:05PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > Obfuscated C code is obviously not source, by any sensible definition-- > > any "definition" of the word "source code" that results in obfuscated > > C code being called "source" is wrong. Since the GPL's definition > > of "source" is reasonable (in fact, it's one of the only robust > > definitions of the word that I'm aware of), it handles this. > > > > Obfuscated code does not satisfy DFSG#2. I hope nobody seriously > > disagrees with this. > > I invite you all to read the source of rivafb and nv. The source is > perfectly legible; it's just hard to deduce what the magic numbers > mean. Similar to how reading the radeon driver would be for someone > who isn't familiar with graphics drivers. > > If this doesn't satisfy DFSG #2, please file a serious bug against > xfree86 for policy violation; the nv driver is obviously totally > non-free. I'll then leave it to you to explain to something like 40% > of new computer owners why their machines don't work with Debian.
Are you sure you read the whole thread before replying? I've already clearly indicated that I agree that the code does not appear to be obfuscated. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
