We are assuming that there has not been complete past compliance with some of the guidelines in the OSD; hence, this process is meant to make compliance easier by clarifying and updating the OSD. IMHO, I think we all know well-documented source code when we see it.
Rod ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Rod Dixon'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:08 PM Subject: Re: Model Code for the OSD : On Saturday 18 January 2003 09:39 am, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: : > I would prefer requiring "all available documentation describing how to : > modify the original work." That means that a developer cannot hide : > documentation that IS available simply to make others' work more : > difficult. /Larry : : I'm not even sure that "deliberately obfuscated source code" even extends to : the documentation. Removing documentation may be necessary to obfuscate : source code, but removing it is rarely sufficient. : : The only type of documentation that is included in source code is comments. : Since the quality of comments in OSS projects ranges from the superb to the : dismal, defining obfuscation in terms of code comments is problematic. To : take one example, why should my modification of apache keep comments in : place, when libsrvg has virtually none to begin with? : : Every section in the OSD specifically refers to the "license" or the "rights : attached to the program", except for section two. It needs to be read : differently. : : 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. : : -- : David Johnson : ___________________ : http://www.usermode.org : pgp public key on website : -- : license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3