Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > We do not have a definition of "source code" in the DFSG. You wanted > > to import the GPL's definition, and that's a bug. > > The DFSG explicitly mentions the GPL, BSD and Artistic licenses as > examples of licenses that satisfy its free sotware requirements.
Yes, but they might well do so while imposing more restrictions than necessary. The GPL also requires change logs, but that isn't a DFSG requirement. > Ted Ts'o has already explicitly pointed out that he's talking about > cases where more than the bitmap is available. *Available*? I thought he was talking about cases where the more-than-the-bitmap was being kept secret and not available.
