* Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> [160711 07:08]: > Quoting Pirate Praveen (2016-07-11 10:30:59) > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 19:41:17 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > > > The requirement of source format of redistributed code is not about > > > it being possible/easy to edit by those receiving it¹, but about it > > > being in the format preferred by _upstream_ to edit - e.g. for > > > passing patches upstream.
I have to disagree with this. The requirement for "preferred form of modification" was explicitly to allow the recipient of the software the freedom and ability to modify the software, not to force a particular workflow (e.g. upstream's workflow) on the recipient, or require the recipient to send patches back to upstream (which fails the dissident test). My interpretation of "preferred form" is _any_ (explicitly not "the") form which a significant percentage of persons who have experience modifying that kind of software would agree that the given form is as easy to modify as any other form, modulo some level of personal preference. Using upstream's preferred form is not required in order to satisfy the license's preferred form. Without this flexibility, any use of Allman style indenting and braces completely fails the "preferred form" test. :-P Free software encourages, but does not require, giving back to the free software community. Free software _does_ require giving the recipient equal footing to modify the software. ...Marvin
