🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MIB.92Feb10151217@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>As a result, the GPL contains the following clause to allow what Next does:

>  Source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
>  modifications to it.  For an executable file, complete source code means
>  all the source code for all modules it contains; but, as a special
>  exception, it need not include source code for modules which are standard
>  libraries that accompany the operating system on which the executable
>  file runs, or for standard header files or definitions files that
>  accompany that operating system.

Seems like this also answers the question of "what is 'source' if some
of the code is machine-generated?"  Clearly, since I prefer to modify
the input to the code/table generator, the generated C is *not* source
code, and thus is not sufficient if someone does want access to the
source.

Of course, if the processor of the source code is proprietary...

On a slightly related note, the Sunday edition of the San Jose Mercury
News had an article on uncooperative local governments releasing
allegedly public information -- multiple 100 thousand dollar
"processing fees", as well as foot-high printer listings.  So much for
"public" information, eh?

David Chase
Sun