Rod Dixon wrote: > ...what I am unsure of is whether we should be satisfied > with the status quo or whether we should amplify Article 2 with something > more than just saying the source code should not be deliberately > obfuscated. Poorly expressed source code need not be deliberately > obfuscated to end run the objective of what it means to provide "open" > access to the source code. Agree?
That's a tough one. But you might be able to expand upon: "The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program." This could be interpreted to mean that the source must be readily modifiable without having to first translate or filter it. David -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
