On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:36:15PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Why would C stay the preferred form for modifying a work for eternity, > > even when the current work bares hardly a resemblence to its C > > original? > > It is *PART* of the source. Not the whole source, but part of it.
No, it's part of its history, not its source any more. I think you've been reductio'd ad absurdum. In the situation where I take a simple GPL'd C program, compile it to assembler, then hand-optimise the assembler before altering the code, initially in small ways, eventually completely re-writing the whole thing, adding huge amounts of new functionality, removing the initial functionality entirely once it becomes obsolete, and then translating the whole thing into assembler for a different architecture (the old one likewise became obsolete), then there is no well-defined point at which the C source ceases to be any kind of source for the end product, but it most certainly does happen somewhere along the way. > No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that editing a > binary cannot remove your obligation to distribute the C source which > produced that binary, even if you do a bunch of significant extensive > edits, even if you threw away the C source. The C source may have produced the original binary, but that is neither here nor there. I'm not distributing the original binary. It's ancient history. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bridge ahead. Pay troll.
