Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru> wrote:
> 30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
> > at all.
>
> And that (together with the intention of the license expressed in
> Preamble) seems to be the only reason why Section 2 cannot be
> interpreted as permitting to distribute binaries. There are no direct
> arguments. Sadly...
You still need section 3 if you want to distribute modified binaries
and remain sane, or you don't have the rights to major components of
the operating system that are present in the binary.
This is really such a small loophole. It basically allows someone to
distribute a binary that they _completely_ own and call it GPL'd. You
can't take away the copyleft of any other GPL'd programs.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: