Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL?

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

John Hasler wrote:

> Dumitru Ciobarcianu writes:
>> You can have that ? GPL the binary but not the source ?
> 
> Eduard Bloch writes:
>> IMHO yes. If not, start sueing all upstream authors distribution GPL
>> source without .xcf for .png files or .mid/.mod/... for .wav files,
>> etc.pp.
> 
> IMHO the term "source code" applies to software and has no useful meaning
> when applied to such things.
No, it has a useful meaning when applied to such software: "preferred form
for modification".

.wav files are often, in fact, the preferred form for modification
(hand-editing waveforms, applying noise reduction, treating the sound,
splicing, sampling, etc.)  There are innumerable programs which operate
directly on .wav files.

For contrast, .mp3 files rarely are, if there's a .wav version (you always
want the full-quality .wav file instead).

If a .png image was scanned in, or drawn and saved directly as .png (they
often are) -- that's presumably the preferred form for modification.  If
it's a conversion of a vector graphics file, the vector graphics file is
presumably the preferred form for modification.

I feel like I have to state the obvious over and over.

-- 
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/