Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > Remember that we're talking about the non-standard situation where
> > the object code *itself* is "the Program" to which the copyright
> > holder applied the GPL.

> Sure, and I'm arguing that because you're distributing only object or
> executable code, not source, Section 3 applies.

Section 3 applies if you want the rights secion 3 gives you. If you
can get the rights you need from some other source (in this case:
section 2) you don't need to worry about section 2. The sections are
independent grants of rights.

> It's the only permision grant that specifically covers what you are
> distributing,

In our hypothetical case, section 2 specifically covers what's being
distributed to, because what's being distributed is "the Program",
which is what section 2 specifically applies to.

> I'm fairly confident that this is similar to Eben Moglen's
> interpretation of the license, but perhaps you should ask him to
> clarify it for you?

I don't see any reason to bother him with this. If you think it is
worth his time to spell out what's plainly there in the license for
you, go ahead.

-- 
Henning Makholm       "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
                 useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."