On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:31:36AM +0200, Julien Puydt wrote: > Le mardi 29 mai, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit: > > Moreover, we all know, that even providing usable binaries accompanied > > by FOSS code, without formalized build procedures and clearly > > specified dependencies would complicate any extension of the code, > > thus often significantly reducing the benefit of having that code > > under FOSS license to begin with. As the result, mandating "open > > code" to accompany research papers would be of limited practical > > importance to the science due to difficulty of its adoption and > > extension. > > I can't lay my hand on it at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the FSF > has some definition of "source code" which means the code as used by > the developers (not some precompiled form like a "gcc -E" or "gcc -S"), > with the files necessary to build.
That's part of every license, such as GPL: The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source form of a work. Bye, Mt. -- Oh, I am a C programmer and I'm okay. I muck with indices and structs all day. And when it works, I shout hoo-ray. Oh, I am a C programmer and I'm okay. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
