On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:09:38 +0000 Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > How about: > > > > If the author could change something but you can't, he probably > > hasn't given you the source? > > That is a very good rule of thumb, and really should be everybody's > first test for deciding whether something is source or not.
Indeed.
>
> However, it still isn't robust enough to withstand attacks from
> determined literalists. For example, you'll want to exclude instances
> where the reason I cannot change something that the author can is that
> the author is smart enough to understand the program and I'm
> not. Conversely, the rule does not cover cases where the author has
> thrown out the real source with the deliberate intention of preventing
> anybody from modifying the work easily.
I agree.
The above question is a good "rule of thumb", as you stated.
But the definition of source code is different: as I said, the best I've
seen is the GPL one ("preferred form for modification").
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgphB8QpRjj01.pgp
Description: PGP signature
