Binaries under GPL(2) (was: Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source)
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue? I.e.
>> why binaries can not be distributed under section 2 of the GPL?
> When binaries are not the prefered form for modification, as in the
> case where there is still source code extant[1], in order to
> redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be able to
> provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
Why? Section 2 of the GPL doesn't require to provide source. It
doesn't talk about source at all.
> 1: In my opinion anyway, it is not enough that source is not available
> to the secondary distributor.
What is source according to the GPL is an interesting question, but
that's another question. And answer is only needed when you want to
distribute something under section 3 of the GPL. So it's not directly
relevant in case of Debian. Let me quote Walter Landry again
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00182.html):
Section 3 gives you rights in addition to section 2. Section 3 lets
you distribute a particular kind of modification that is not allowed
in Section 2 (a modification that incorporates things that can not be
licensed under the GPL). But Debian is not doing that, so there is no
need to resort to section 3.
> If it exists anywhere, it must be
> provided in order to distribute the code. Furthermore, as a
> maintainer, you should be very carefull about maintaining a package
> (or parts of a package) where there is no source available...
> maintainablility, trojans, et al. all become a much more serious
> problem without source.
Sure source is a big plus:-) But there are many "binaries" where the
lack of source is not that fatal -- bitmap pictures generated from
layered source, PostScript/PDF generated from TeX, info generated from
texinfo, etc. Another example is fonts. For instance there was a
thread "Bug#182402: ttf-freefont is violating the GNU GPL" starting
from
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00154.html
about distributing fonts without the source SFD files (unfortunately
it wasn't discussed why section 3 of the GPL should be applied,
instead of section 2).
Sasha
Reply to: