On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 PM, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > 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've always defined the source to be whatever the original author used to create the files I'm looking at. The phrase "preferred form for modification" and the spirit of FLOSS as defined by the FSF and Debian/OSI has always indicated to me equality of access to information forms. That is, IMO the source code is whatever form the author preferred to modify the work. So an ELF executable could be source code if it was written by hand instead of generated using GCC. This seems to be the definition used by the ftp-masters, they have rejected packages containing PDF files that looked like they were generated before and this is explicitly mentioned in the REJECT-FAQ: Source missing: Your packages contains files that need source but do not have it. These include PDF and PS files in the documentation. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html As to the legal definition, anyone know? I personally doubt it has ever been defined. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
