On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Practicalities aren't a primary issue. If it's not a practical form for > > modification, it's probably not preferred by anyone, either--but if I really > > do prefer an "unpractical" form to modify a program, then it's still my > > source, and your definition is wrong. > > Why do you believe we require source code for everything in main? > Because it's there? Or because we believe the recipients should be able > to create derived works and learn how the software functions?
What does this have to do with the definition of "source"? Sometimes source just isn't enough to figure out how a program (or hardware) works, lacking eg. hardware documentation; that's annoying, but it's still source. If I create a program with a hex editor, it's source, even if it doesn't serve Free Software's goals so well. If you think something more than source code should be required, then propose it. Don't change the very definition of "source" to suit an agenda, even if your agenda is Free Software. You'll just end up with something that just isn't a definition of "source" at all. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
