3 ms·
I struggle to imagine how this definition in the Linux kernel's license: > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modificat
by jlokier 6y ago
I struggle to imagine how this definition in the Linux kernel's license:
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
can be seen as "not clear cut" with regard to whether obfuscated source code counts.
It plainly rules out obfuscation.
(Unless you genuinely prefer editing the obfuscated version. Which you provably don't if obfuscation is done just for release.)
- eredengrin 6y agoWhat is preventing a company from hiring a developer or two for very cheap to "work" on the obfuscated code, but not do any real work (or better yet, just bundle it into an existing job description of a qa member or a dev on some other team or something)? How would you prove in court that the devs "working" on the obfuscated version weren't the ones doing the work? It brings into question which version is actually preferred over the other, and how do you answer that? Based off number of commits or changes on the branches? Obfuscated version could easily be gamed to have more commits, and given that it's obfuscated, it might have even more individual changes just by default. I imagine there are some companies that think these questions are worth pondering.