On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote: >On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:59:27PM -0700, John Galt wrote: >> I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are >> actually already in source form. > >"A Turing-complete system is one in which the behaviour of a universal >Turing machine can be completely emulated." > >Er. That would include compiled binaries, and they're not source; what >does turing completeness have to do with whether a file is source or not?
Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to include a perlscript must necessarily include a postscript document. >I think that a PDF is source if it's human-editable, and not if it's >practically uneditable PDF code generated from something else. The >GFDL tries to make this distinction for HTML. ...and fails miserably IMHO. One thing that must necessarily fall into the "not source" category is ASCII-armored encrypted text, yet the GFDL allows it as a transparent copy, for an example. GPG is available to the general public, it is editable with cat or sed with the proper key if you so desire, and the output from gpg is pipeable. -- Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
