On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> 24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
>> in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
>> able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
>
> Section 2 of the GPL doesn't require to provide source. It doesn't
> talk about source at all.
Section 3 is the critical point here, as it covers distribution in
object or executable formats, which is what we would be distributing.
> 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).
No, section 3 specifically refers to distributing object or executable
code, not "incorportating things that cannot be licensed under the
GPL."
> 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.
In all of these cases, we should be seeing the original source, rather
than the resultant binary if the work is released under the GPL. In
cases where it isn't, the resultant work has either been removed, or
the source has been provided. [If you are aware of additional cases,
please file bugs and/or refer the parties to debian-legal.]
Don Armstrong
--
UF: What's your favourite coffee blend?
PD: Dark Crude with heavy water. You are understandink? "If geiger
counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick."
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature