Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So yes, I agree that the ability to modify works is key to their > freedom. But, as has already been discussed, the best definition of > "good enough" that we know of is "the preferred form for modification" > -- generally the form preferred by the author. If you're still arguing > about that then please provide an alternate definition.
Source code is any form of a work that allows any user who might be reasonably expected to modify the work to perform any modifications that they might be reasonably expected to perform. Occasionally a work may have several forms that meet this criterion. If we apply this to a binary application, we find that the C code is the source. If we apply this to a photograph of a circuit board, we find that the photograph is the source. If we apply this to a machine-generated picture that is interpreted by another application, we find that the application to generate the picture is required. The form that the author used to create a work should be irrelevent to freeness. A 20 megabyte binary-only application is non-free, even if the author wrote and maintains it in a hex-editor. The author's preferred form for modification is a good metric, but not the be-all and end-all of whether a work provides sufficient freedom. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
