Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source
Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru> wrote:
> 19-Nov-03 13:25 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> >> Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just
> >> freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free?
>
> > Yes.
>
> >> Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated to me, so I stick to
> >> programming ;-) )
>
> > Thats part and parcel of the GPL... if the company doesn't include the
> > prefered form for modification, no one else can distribute it.
>
> 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?
>
> In the thread starting from
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00161.html
> opinions seem to be divided:
>
> In
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00202.html
> Walter Landry wrote:
>
> Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > It's clear that our basic disagreement is here. I see nothing in
> > section 2 that would limit it only to source code.
>
> Correct. Compiling is a form of modification. But are you able to
> distribute everything in the object file (including the libraries)
> under the terms of the GPL? If not (which is the case most of the
> time for compiled languages on non-free platforms), then the GPL
> allows a special exemption: Section 3.
I take it back. Section 2 says
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
and Section 1 requires source code.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: