On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:21:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > The DFSG says "The program must include source code." So for works > which are programs, we know how to apply that. > > The new Social Contract makes clear that this is to apply to > non-programs also. But how, since "source code" is a term that > normally refers only to programs? Well, one way would be to take the > GPL's definition of "source code". But we need not do that, and there > are compelling reasons not to.
Oh? If we take "program" to mean "a sequence of instructions that a computer can interpret and execute", then it's reasonable to consider a font file as instructions on how to render characters in that font. I think you could argue that a font file is not a program expressed in a turing-complete langauge, but that hardly seems a relevant issue here. Perhaps you had some other definition in mind for "program"? If so, which one? [It's not sufficient to merely declare that some definition is inadequate -- you must also supply a better definition.] Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
