Subject: Re: Open Source and Government agencies
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:21:46 -0500

>> BTW when I read it closely I think that 4b is a mistake.  After all
>> the binary "machine-readable source"?  I think they meant
>No. "machine-readable" source is needed to recompile the program. A
>paper copy is human readable but not very useful to modify it.
>From the GNU GPL:
>    The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
>    making modifications to it.
>Therefore, the binary isn't source code (and neither yacc/lex output or
>other preprocessed C code is).

IANAL but the Artistic License fails to include said definition, and I
doubt that definitions used in another license are necessarily binding on
the Artistic license.  A good case can probably be made for the expectation
that your interpretation is what was intended, but I see some room for