Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!

Difference between revisions of "Source Code"

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (rvv)
 
(67 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== ==定義
+
==Definition==
 +
Source code is a delicate question to tackle in the broad context of free contents. For example, the GNU GPL defines it as ''"the preferred form of the work for making modifications to [the work]"''. Indeed, source code is of primary importance for many kinds of works (especially software).
  
源代碼是一個微妙的問題解決的廣泛範圍的自由的內容。例如,GNU GPL的界定為''“的首選形式的工作作出修改[工作]"''.事實上,源代碼是首要的許多種工作(特別是軟件)。
+
But there are also situations where the idea of source code appears irrelevant or even meaningless. Consider a digital recording of a modern rock concert. How do we define "source code" ? No symbolic or textual transcription of the concert will be able to describe exactly (so as to reproduce accurately) the manner in which the guitarist picked the strings of his instruments, the slight variations in pitch or tempo of the singer, etc.
  
但也有情況下的思想的源代碼似乎無關緊要,甚至毫無意義。考慮一個數字錄音現代搖滾音樂會。如何界定“源代碼”?任何符號或文字轉錄演唱會,能夠準確描述(以便準確地重現)的方式挑選的吉他琴弦,他文書,稍有不同的音高或速度的歌手,等
+
Even if no "source code" can be made available for such a work, it would be counter-productive to qualify it as "non-free" if it satisfies to the other freedoms of free content.
  
即使沒有“源代碼”,可以提供這樣的工作,這將是適得其反的資格為“不自由”,如果它滿足其他自由的免費內容。
+
Thus, let's define a criterion for knowing when source code is mandatory:
 
+
* '''When the work or part of it is generated by computation from a  modifiable structured form (e.g. textual), this modifiable structured form is called ''source code''. It must be made available to recipients of the work.'''
因此,讓我們定義一個標準為不知何時源代碼是強制性的:
 
* '''當工作或部分由它生成的計算,從修改的結構形式(如文本),該修改的結構形式稱為'' ''的源代碼。它必須提供給受助人的工作。'''
 
  
 
==Discussion of terms==
 
==Discussion of terms==
 
 
* ''structured'': which gives access to the structure of the work (for example, an OpenDocument file gives access to the structure of the document, whereas a PDF file doesn't)
 
* ''structured'': which gives access to the structure of the work (for example, an OpenDocument file gives access to the structure of the document, whereas a PDF file doesn't)
 
* ''modifiable'': whose format allows easy modification (including modification of structure)
 
* ''modifiable'': whose format allows easy modification (including modification of structure)
 
* ''computation'': which does not involve any creative act from a human being
 
* ''computation'': which does not involve any creative act from a human being
  
== ==及物
+
==Transitivity==
當然,源代碼必須符合自由免費的內容,以及。
+
Of course, the source code must satisfy the freedoms of free content as well.
因此,通過遞歸,我們的定義是不弱於一個在GNU通用公共許可證
+
Therefore, by recursion, our definition is not weaker than the one in the GNU GPL
  
 
==Examples==
 
==Examples==
 
 
* software source code
 
* software source code
 
* editable text (raw text, XML, word processor files...)
 
* editable text (raw text, XML, word processor files...)
Line 27: Line 24:
 
* tablatures, lyrics
 
* tablatures, lyrics
 
* multitracks from an audio recording
 
* multitracks from an audio recording
* ...
+
* multitracks from any video recording

Latest revision as of 12:50, 27 April 2020

Definition[edit]

Source code is a delicate question to tackle in the broad context of free contents. For example, the GNU GPL defines it as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to [the work]". Indeed, source code is of primary importance for many kinds of works (especially software).

But there are also situations where the idea of source code appears irrelevant or even meaningless. Consider a digital recording of a modern rock concert. How do we define "source code" ? No symbolic or textual transcription of the concert will be able to describe exactly (so as to reproduce accurately) the manner in which the guitarist picked the strings of his instruments, the slight variations in pitch or tempo of the singer, etc.

Even if no "source code" can be made available for such a work, it would be counter-productive to qualify it as "non-free" if it satisfies to the other freedoms of free content.

Thus, let's define a criterion for knowing when source code is mandatory:

  • When the work or part of it is generated by computation from a modifiable structured form (e.g. textual), this modifiable structured form is called source code. It must be made available to recipients of the work.

Discussion of terms[edit]

  • structured: which gives access to the structure of the work (for example, an OpenDocument file gives access to the structure of the document, whereas a PDF file doesn't)
  • modifiable: whose format allows easy modification (including modification of structure)
  • computation: which does not involve any creative act from a human being

Transitivity[edit]

Of course, the source code must satisfy the freedoms of free content as well. Therefore, by recursion, our definition is not weaker than the one in the GNU GPL

Examples[edit]

  • software source code
  • editable text (raw text, XML, word processor files...)
  • vector graphics files
  • tablatures, lyrics
  • multitracks from an audio recording
  • multitracks from any video recording