On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:33:50PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > What we have is source code (yes code that can be compiled) which is > > unencumbered, we can modify,compile, distribute etc... whether it is > > _harder_ to modify or not because of choices the _owner/author_ has > > made or not... is nothing to do with freedom. > > What you are showing here is that "code that can be compiled" is not a > working defintion of "source code".
It not only works, but has been used for a long time. What you are showing is that you have a dislike for source that is hard to modify (fair enough) and would like for it not to be called 'source code' if you feel it is hard to read/modify. 'source code' does not mean 'code that came from the original source untouched' (lets face it, define 'original source' when there is more than one person working on code with different trees, working machines etc...) it literally means code that can be used to generate a binary. So please stop making weird claims about the meaning of words and definitions and state plainly that you don't like hard to read/modify (ugly?) source code and would like Debian to ban using such. We can argue and vote on that... -- Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
