Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If >> >> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software. >> > >> > Does this mean that a program written in C is only free if the user you >> > give >> > it to is fluent in C ? Or can get someone fluent in C to make modifications >> > for him ? >> >> No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom. >> C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source. >> Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source. > > What about a language that is not widely known ? And where do you put the > limit ? I have to disagree with you about this, the GPL speaks about the > prefered form of modification, not that it has to be readable by everyone. So, > if i program something in unlambda or brainfuck or whatever, then this is the > prefered form of modification, since there is no other form more easily > modifiable, and this is no problem for the GPL. The same goes for a a set of > hole-cards carrying some age old program that someone may have in a closet and > chose to release under the GPL.
No. If you program something in unlambda or brainfuck or whatever, and I ask you to make changes and you do so in that language, *then* that's the preferred form for modification. If you say, "I can't!" or you start rewriting it in a sane language, then you didn't have the preferred form for modification in the first place. A card deck is often source. If it doesn't have the mnemonics printed on it, and is just raw punches, then it probably isn't -- I'd certainly rewrite such a program from scratch rather than try to scan the cards and deal from there. > The same goes for code that was written direct in assembly, or direct in > machine language, there is no other version, and it is thus the prefered form > of modification, so it is fine by the GPL. The same argument I just made applies to this, too -- sometimes the source for a program is destroyed. With a hypothetical perfectly write-only language, there never was source. If tomorrow all the C and Lisp source for Emacs vanishes, that doesn't make the binaries the new source. >> Why do you think it's fun to repeatedly say "Ha ha! I gotcha this >> time, you wascally wegal-poster! You gave an example, but if I >> pretend it's a rigid law, to be applied blindly as often as possible, >> it makes no sense!"? Doesn't this game get boring after a while? > > Well, just wait, i will soon come here to debian-legal with the problem > sourunding miboot and its non-free boot sector pilfered from age old apple > floppies. Didn't that get mentioned here already? I thought somebody volunteered to talk to Apple and see if they'd formally relinquish copyright to the 20-or-so bytes of magic to boot their old powerpcs? -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
