2011/7/22 Jason Self <[email protected]> > What? Is is absolutely source code. >
Source is the point of origin of something Its not the same as upstream. cd .. takes you upstream. cd / takes you to the root. its not the same as compilable code In software, is what PEOPLE create by its minds. Legally the authors of that source: firefox, linux, not linuxlibre, not icecat. So if we want to have the source code of something as free, we need to have a comunity commited to free software principles creating that software. The source came from minds, free soft from free minds. As usual, the first point is liberating minds. From AUTHORS, persons, beings. Taking software from others and taking out free parts is good for our purpouses, but we do not obtain magicaly free sources. We obtain free distributable code, binary and in human readable language, but not sources. > We'd gain an entirely free kernel *all > over again*? We already have one. So I see nothing bad about maintaining > what > is essentially a fork of the Linux kernel, and incorporating changes from > new > releases of the Linux kernel when they occur, and plenty of good stuff > reasons > to do so. > Its not bad, is good, off course, but is not a free source, that's all. ok, we have a little (or big, thats a relative question) problem, free software rules say that you must distribute free sources .... but we have not one. we have a good aproximation, we are near the root, but not in the root. Thats all.
