| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> And no-source-code means that no public free licensed source code |
| 4 |
> exists at all, or is just not shipped in the distfile? Do we need to |
| 5 |
> distinguish these two? (I think this affects various -bin packages |
| 6 |
> and fonts mostly) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
"no-source-code" means that the section about source code of the Free |
| 9 |
Software Definition ... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
| In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the |
| 12 |
| freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must |
| 13 |
| have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, |
| 14 |
| accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free |
| 15 |
| software. Obfuscated "source code" is not real source code and does |
| 16 |
| not count as source code. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
... or section 2 of the Open Source Definition ... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in |
| 21 |
| source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product |
| 22 |
| is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized |
| 23 |
| means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable |
| 24 |
| reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without |
| 25 |
| charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a |
| 26 |
| programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source |
| 27 |
| code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a |
| 28 |
| preprocessor or translator are not allowed. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
... are not fulfilled. So a well-publicised location where the source |
| 31 |
code can be freely accessed would qualify. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ulrich |
Archives