Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
26-Nov-03 08:22 Walter Landry wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru> wrote:
>> 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.
> Section 2 references Section 1, which does talk about source.
Section 3 also references Section 1...
>> > 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.
> I have since changed my mind.
Nevertheless your arguments seem convincing. That's the problem;-)
> I wasn't reading Section 2 closely
> enough. Only Section 3 gives you permission to distribute non-source.
> Section 1 lets you distribute source, and Section 2 lets you
> distribute modified source.
Sorry, it's not yet clear to me why Section 2 is not applicable to
binaries.
Sasha
Reply to: