Re: sources and scripts for generated files

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>]

Andreas Röhler writes:

 > > But this part is not hard to understand.
 > >
 > > (1) You must provide sources that are reasonably convenient to edit.
 > > (2) Which do you think is more editable?  Ship it.

 > Preferences might change and be close to tastes. Should really all
 > the ephemeric helper-functions used in the edit-process need to be
 > included?

Eh?

 > Always understood GPL legal term "source" in sense of
 > required-to-build-the-binary.  I.e. in sense of "Corresponding
 > Source", where it's said:

Before the definition of "Corresponding Source", the gods have chosen
to place the definition of "Source".[1]  See line one of the section
you quoted.  Application of that definition is what everybody else in
this thread is concerned with.

Footnotes: 
[1]  With apologies to Grandmaster Lasker, I believe it was, as well
as any atheists who may be listening in.