3 ms·

>Shipping obfuscated source code is NOT the same thing as shipping some prepackaged binary. Yes, it is. Obfuscated source code, like a binary, is not the corr

>Shipping obfuscated source code is NOT the same thing as shipping some prepackaged binary. Yes, it is. Obfuscated source code, like a binary, is not the corresponding source code. "The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities." See: https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

film42 12y ago
Absolutely not! Just because it doesn't jive with GPL doesn't mean JS obfuscation is no longer source. It's not like compiling a C program without debugger symbols. It's the same high-level JS language, it's just "harder to read." The point of saying it's "not source code" is just wrong.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Absolutely not! Just because it doesn't jive with GPL doesn't mean JS obfuscation is no longer source. It's not the source code, because its not the first code produced before any automated transformation. Its an intermediate form that happens to still remain text, and remain legal code in the same language as the source code.
- anonymoushn 12y ago
  You can use a disassembler to get source code out of your binary. If I distribute my binaries with corresponding assembly source (which I obtained from a disassembler), am I distributing my source code?
- TheEzEzz 12y ago
  > It's not like compiling a C program without debugger symbols. It definitely can be exactly isomorphic to just that via emscripten.
- c22 12y ago
  Where do you draw the line? Isn't compiled byte code just harder to read also?