Paul Wise wrote: > [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are > the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the > source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it means by source code? I think one is deep into language lawyerism and death by dictionaries if you want to say those PS files aren't source code. To do that needs more detail than exists in the current DFSG. The DFSG text and two alternative definitions from dict are shown below: one would accept the PS files, the other would reject them. I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. Just to remind myself: [http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines] 2. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]: source code n : program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be translated by a compiler or interpreter or assembler into the object code for a particular computer before execution The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) [foldoc]: source code <language, programming> (Or "source", or rarely "source language") The form in which a computer program is written by the programmer. Source code is written in some formal programming language which can be compiled automatically into {object code} or {machine code} or executed by an {interpreter}. (1995-01-05) -- 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] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
