Re: New summary: Binary peripheral software
J.D. Hood writes:
> One says on the one hand that the binary _is_ the source so that he can
> say that the requirements of the GPL are satisfied, then he turns around
> and says that the code can't go into main because it doesn't come with
> source.
Who is "he"? One possible interpretation is that the binary is the source
if the copyright holder so asserts. If one does not accept that
interpretation, or if there is no reason to believe that the copyright
holder considers the binary to be source then the work is obviously not
DFSG-compliant.
> Couldn't the evil publisher of program foo use the fact that Debian
> distributes foo in non-free as evidence that Debian is distributing foo
> in knowing violation of section 3 of the GPL?
The GPL is a license, not a law. It is a grant of rights by that
publisher, who knowingly released the work without complete source. He'd
get laughed out of court. Look up "promissory estoppel".
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Reply to: