Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

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.

> > 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.  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.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu