Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

[Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru>]

29-Nov-03 15:00 Don Armstrong wrote:
> Sure, and I'm arguing that because you're distributing only object or
> executable code, not source, Section 3 applies. It's the only
> permision grant that specifically covers what you are distributing, so
> it trumps the other clauses.

There are two alternatives IMHO: either Section 2 does give a
permission to distribute binaries or it doesn't. And this is
independent of Section 3. But you seems to say that Section 2 doesn't
give such permission because Section 3 does so. That confuses me...

However I probably get some idea. Parts of the license cannot be
interpreted independently of each other and independently of the
intent. For instance Preamble says "Our General Public Licenses are
designed to make sure ...  that you receive source code", then GPL 2
cannot be interpreted as a permission of distribution of binaries, no
matter what its text says.

IMHO it's quite strange for a license to rely on such an indirect
reasoning. But maybe that's normal in legal world?..

Sasha