Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > Could you please describe the way you read the GPL in more details?
> > How do you understand "under the terms of"? What are "the terms of
> > Section 1" exactly, in your opinion?
> 
> Section 1 gives you the permision to distribute source, and covers the
> general terms for distribution of anything. That is its primary
> function.
> 
> Section 2 gives you permision to distribute modified version of the
> program's source (and in conjunction with 3, modified versions of the
> program's object or executable code.). That's its primary function.

True, that is its _primary_ function.  What we're arguing about is
whether there is a loophole.  If Section 2 mentioned source code in
the same way that Section 1 did, then there would be no argument.

I think that I have to change my mind back.  You can distribute
binaries under Section 2, but you have to own *everything* in the
binary.  As Henning noted, it is just an oversight in the wording.
Not a serious one, though.  It doesn't break the copyleft.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu