On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 11:43:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The SC is not a legal document. Common sense should suffice to conclude
> > that obfuscated source does not comply with the DFSG.
>
> While I tend to agree, this has the unfortunate side-effect of removing
> any form of support
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andi writes:
>> "preferred form for modification" is _only_ a GPL-term and not part of
>> the SC.
>
> The SC is not a legal document. Common sense should suffice to conclude
> that obfuscated source does not comply with the DFSG.
While I tend to agree, th
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 17:50]:
>> > Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >
>> > >Imagine a source where all variables are named v and all
>> > >functions f. Is that still fr
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 17:50]:
> > Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >
> > >Imagine a source where all variables are named v and all
> > >functions f. Is that still free? Where do we draw the line?
> > >When does sour
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 19:35]:
> Andi writes:
> > "preferred form for modification" is _only_ a GPL-term and not part of
> > the SC.
> The SC is not a legal document. Common sense should suffice to conclude
> that obfuscated source does not comply with the DFSG.
I didn't argue
Andi writes:
> "preferred form for modification" is _only_ a GPL-term and not part of
> the SC.
The SC is not a legal document. Common sense should suffice to conclude
that obfuscated source does not comply with the DFSG.
--
John Hasler
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 17:50]:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> >Imagine a source where all variables are named v and all
> >functions f. Is that still free? Where do we draw the line?
> >When does source stop to be bad style and start to become obfuscated
> >and unacceptable
7 matches
Mail list logo