Re: Bad license on VCG?
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 05:54:07PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you receive it,
You omitted #3, which amends #1, and we're not obviously "fine" there.
I don't know how you can possibly argue that the source we've received
is the preferred form for modification when the author says the
following:
"Thus, we have uglified some of the files in the distribution: these
are the graph layout modules. These files are not anymore readable
for human being, but they are readeable for the compiler."
Not readable = not modifiable = not the preferred form for modification.
Not the preferred form for modification = we can't distribute binaries.
> And given the package with which we have been provided, that is the obfuscated
> C.
I think you're the only programmer I've ever seen claim that obfuscated
source is a preferred form for modification. It's perfectly clear from
the author's text that the obfuscated source is not intended to be
modifiable, however.
> The definition of source is "the preferred form of the work for making
> modifications", selected from those forms which are available to you.
You're the one amending "selected from those forms which are available
to you." The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of
source, but it's not the GPL's.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: