Steve Langasek <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > The argument used to justify the claim that the DFSG requires source for PDF > and PS files is that PDF and PS are programming languages. [...]
I asked that we not have this argument here and now, because this case involves applets under the GPL, so the PDF-source problem doesn't matter, but if the alternative is that some will invent incorrect and weak strawmen arguments to fight, I might as well try to straighten this record. I thought the argument used is that PDF and PS are produced by compiling some document source code to some object code. Whether or not they are programs seems irrelevant. Indeed, this previous email says as much: "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" -- Bernhard R. Link, 29 March, this thread. So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument come from? References, please! Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
