> How would Dr. Stallman have felt if he had gotten his printer driver with a free license but so much code ... that it would've been impossible ... to actually

> How would Dr. Stallman have felt if he had gotten his printer driver with a free license but so much code ... that it would've been impossible ... to actually port it and make it run on his system? While I am not an expert on legal language and how it can be used by lawyers, I believe RMS and the FSF at least attempt to address this in the GPL Version 2 (there is probably a similar requirement in the GPL Version 3, but it is more complicated so I'm not sure which requirement corresponds to this quote form v2): "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Code that is so large complex that it is not practical to understand or port wasn't written by a human. Such code is probably a template or macro expansion of the real source, and the "preferred form" would be the pre-expansion source. This may not cover all ways of obfuscating the code, but "preferred form" is trying to be as inclusive as possible.