"Bernhard R. Link" <[email protected]> writes: > * Steve Langasek <[email protected]> [090328 23:46]: > > A PDF as a program is its own source. You're talking about the > > preferred format for modification of *documentation*, not a > > program. There's no reason to expect that two different versions > > of mumble2pdf are going to output two *programs* that resemble one > > another in the slightest > > This is no different to a compiled binary. It's just another > computer-readable translation, which a human can also treat as such, > such a very inconvenient one. And while different compilations of a > program are in practise very similar, the only thing one can expect > is that they produce binary that do the same thing (and even that is > often not true).
Moreover, those that want to have different freedoms for users of different types of software — documentation, programs, images, etc. — still have all their arguing ahead of them. The *default* position should be that all users get the same freedoms; restrictions for some types of software, that don't apply to others, need to be justified explicitly. That's quite apart from the practical matters of even reliably *distinguishing* different types of bit streams from each other in order to figure out which rules apply: e.g. if the software is a PDF, it is both documentation *and* program. -- \ “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more | `\ to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a | _o__) sober one.” —George Bernard Shaw | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
