Le mercredi 30 mai, Martin Quinson a écrit: > 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.
I was thinking about something longer and mentioning whatever is required to build said sources :-/ Snark on #debian-science -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
