[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> i could have worded that better - what is says is that it must
> be made clear, what qualifies as the
> complete-corresponding-source for the work - the GPL presumes
> that the CCS form is obvious for executables; but that is not so
> obvious for other blobs such as images and audio - the CCS for
> those, may be in many different forms,
GPL 3 has a definition of source code which is very general.
I think it will give good results for all sorts of works.
Have you seen any specific example where you think it would not?
including other binaries
> (eg: GIMP .xcf files); and those formats are often proprietary -
If compiling the work requires nonfree tools, that would violate GPL
3, I think.
I don't think it is legal to specify in a different way what
constitutes source code. I think it violates section 7.
I never asked a lawyer, though. Have you?
That is a tangent in this list -- please let's discuss it off the
list.
--
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
