| |||||||||||||
Preferred form for whom?Preferred form for whom?Posted Mar 9, 2011 18:19 UTC (Wed) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063)In reply to: Preferred form for whom? by pebolle Parent article: Red Hat and the GPL
So then the question should be: what is the "preferred form" for, well, almost anyone using computers?If we accept your premise that we should concentrate on users rather than developers, then the answer is simple. The preferred form of source is no source at all; it just confuses them.
(Log in to post comments)
Preferred form for whom? Posted Mar 9, 2011 19:05 UTC (Wed) by pebolle (guest, #35204) [Link]
> If we accept your premise that we should concentrate on users rather than developers, then the answer is simple. The preferred form of source is no source at all; it just confuses them.
No, the answer is almost any reasonable form that allows the user to (at first) "study", (later) "change", and (perhaps, eventually) "improve" the software. (These terms are from the quote I used in my previous post.) The fact that source code will likely just confuse most people using computers (at first, I'd say) is no reason to concentrate on (in this case) kernel developers when interpreting "preferred form".
Preferred form for whom? Posted Mar 9, 2011 20:08 UTC (Wed) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link] It's not just kernel developers. Absolutely anyone with any experience of open source software development will know that dealing with a modified version of an upstream project is painful if you just have a tarball. You absolutely need to see the changes.
|
|||||||||||||