Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > 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.

> If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
> at all.

Section 3 is necessary in the more common case that "the Program" is
not ojbect code but source.

> Eg, you could claim that the compiled version of the Program's
> source is "the Program."

But if that was not what the licensor said was "the Program", I would
be lying.

> Alternatively, you could recieve the binary itself from a party and
> distribute modified versions of it to additional parties without
> distributing the source, thus circumventing the GPL itself.

Again, only if the licensor has defined the binary as being "the Program".

> While it's possible that this particular interaction of the license
> with object code is less clear than it should be, I don't think Debian
> should be in a position of distributing object or executable code that
> is erroneously placed under the GPL.

I agree about that conclusion, though I reach it by another route.

> [Furthermore, it's rather plain that we would be unable to fullfill
> 2c et al. for these files as well,

Huh? 2c essentially applies only when one changes a noninteractive
program to an interactive one.

-- 
Henning Makholm                                      "Punctuation, is? fun!"