On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 09:58 +0200, Carsten Agger wrote: > Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >
<trim> > If this is the preferred form of modification, then it *must* be argued that > it is free; if there´s no hidden source code, then the hex data *is* the > source code in and of itself, and then the software is free if the file is > under a free license. This is probably true - i tend to think of 'prefered form of modification' (workding ok?) as something understandable <trim> > That would be nice, but this is more a question about coding practises: Yes, > writing code so that it´s clear and easy to read, and keeping it well > documented, is a good coding practise which I myself strive to follow. It > does not, however, have anything to do with the question of whether the code > is free/non-free. > > Otherwise, I know of a great number of Perl scripts which would also have to > be marked as non-free because they contain so convoluted one-liners and > regular expressions that they can probably only ever be understood by the > author. > *grin* point well made. > What matters is ultimately not whether data is hexadecimal or not, but whether > > a) you´re free to use, modify, share and improve it and > b) it "hides" some source code which was used to generate it > > if ( a and not b) -> the software is free, and this would be true even if it > was all hexadecimal. > Your right of course, thanks for clarifying it. kk > br > Carsten > > -- > http://www.modspil.dk > > > _______________________________________________ > gNewSense-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users -- Karl Goetz, Debian user / Ubuntu contributor / gNewSense contributor http://www.kgoetz.id.au
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
