[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: Backdoor GPL in message-digest

From: Magnus Achim Deininger
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: Backdoor GPL in message-digest
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:28:54 +0200
User-agent: Opera Mail/10.61 (Win32)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:13:33 +0200, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Magnus Achim Deininger
<address@hidden> wrote:

I take it you haven't seen my assembly sources yet :). That was my point
though, if you actually develop in assembly, depending on how you do it,
source and disassembler output for an object file can be pretty much
identical, and it's not obfuscated, massaged, altered or the like. How is that FUD? Just because it's rare for developers to actually write assembly
code directly and separate code and documentation?

If it's your preferred form, then it's the source for GPL purposes.
But all I can say is, back in the days when I wrote assembly language
(for the PDP-8 and then the PDP-11) fluently, I made sure to put a
comment on *every* line of code.

Yeah, I used to do that too, but lately some of the documentation tools
I'm using can't seem to handle assembly files all that well, so I've
started putting comments for those into separate files. Lots of comments,
that is, heh.

It would just seem that these sources alone are fairly useless to anyone
else without the separate documentation files... wonder if those would be
considered part of the sources then as well.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]