> > My opinion is that "deliberately obfuscated source code" should be > > decoupled > > from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very > > subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. > > IMHO that was meant to exclude people from publishing their > source code after it had been fed through an obfuscator, > which not only strips comments, but changes identifiers from > meaningful names to barely distinguishable strings of gibberish.
Precisely! You are not required to create high-quality documentation, but if you do you should make it available along with the source code in "the preferred form ... for making modifications." (OSL �3.) I heard a story about one company (Tivo was the company identified, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of the report) that is deliberately keeping its published documentation to a minimum in their Linux contributions because they want to retain a proprietary competitive advantage. I think that's not playing fair. It seems to me that's honoring the letter, but not the spirit, of the GPL. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
