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!
Editing Talk:Source Code
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I would note that the definition here for soure code ("symbolic modifiable form") is incompatible with the simper, FSF definition ("the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html]). Source code forms allowed by the GPL might not be similarly allowed by the above definition if, for example, they do not include "symbolic" information. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:16, 15 May 2006 (CEST) | I would note that the definition here for soure code ("symbolic modifiable form") is incompatible with the simper, FSF definition ("the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html]). Source code forms allowed by the GPL might not be similarly allowed by the above definition if, for example, they do not include "symbolic" information. --[[User:Rgladwell|Ricardo Gladwell]] 11:16, 15 May 2006 (CEST) | ||
<blockquote>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.</blockquote> | <blockquote>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.</blockquote> | ||
Lately we've had much of this kind of talk in the Neverball community, deciding which license to use for data, what qualifies as source material, how to distribute it, etc. I think it's important to realize that "source code" contains the word "source", hence in the example above the source material is likely to be the original recording (say, an WAV file) and not a mere transcription of it. If the original happens to be in a proprietary format useless to most people, use the "the best we can get is good enough" approach and your best judgement. (We decided to use lossless FLAC files.) -- parasti @ 18:06, 15 December 2006 (CET) | Lately we've had much of this kind of talk in the Neverball community, deciding which license to use for data, what qualifies as source material, how to distribute it, etc. I think it's important to realize that "source code" contains the word "source", hence in the example above the source material is likely to be the original recording (say, an WAV file) and not a mere transcription of it. If the original happens to be in a proprietary format useless to most people, use the "the best we can get is good enough" approach and your best judgement. (We decided to use lossless FLAC files.) -- parasti @ 18:06, 15 December 2006 (CET) | ||