5 ms·
Obviously, if we’d like to require programmers to release software in source code form then we’re going to need some rules. If programmers are made to release s
by DowsingSpoon 2y ago
Obviously, if we’d like to require programmers to release software in source code form then we’re going to need some rules. If programmers are made to release software in some source code form then what languages should we require? Clearly, Brainfuck is out of the question, for example. Though, it would do no good to legislate the programming community into a religious war over FP or OOP. My proposal, however modest, is that the law require software be released in some kind of well-specified, portable language. Something succinct and powerful. Something symbolic, abstract, and much higher-level than the underlying hardware. Hm. How about x86_64 machine code?
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThat's generally handled with a "preferred form" clause -- it must be released in the form it was written in. If you originally wrote the firmware in Brainfuck, it's fine to release in Brainfuck. But you can't transpile to Brainfuck and release that.
- fredg333 2y agoThis isn’t obvious at all. Does everyone need to speak German for global logistics to work? Is all software out there Ruby? Why the sudden need for a rule that clearly isn’t being followed now and yet no giant foot has squashed us. The well specified form is local machine state. Run someone’s Ruby, automate capturing the machine state. You want it a certain way, be the change you want to see in the world.
- j16sdiz 2y ago> Clearly, Brainfuck is out of the question, for example. Ugh? Are you trying to make selling software written in brianfuck illegal? > portable language So all assembly bootstrap code are outlawed?
- ongy 2y agoWhile this looks hard, the FSF has long ago provided us with a solution. The preferred form to make modifications on.