Re: Bug#239952: kernel-source-2.6.4: qla2xxx contains non-free
John Hasler wrote:
> If you write something in C, compile it to binary, and distribute
> it under the GPL with an explicit permission to redistribute[1]
> despite the absence of source then it is distributable. However,
> it is non-DFSG due to the absence of source.
>
> If you write something directly in binary and distribute it under
> the GPL it is both distributable and DFSG-compliant.
>
> [1] Thomas Hood pointed out that the act of distributing the blob
> under the GPL could be construed as implicit permission to redistribute.
I would go further than this. I think that if A writes something in C,
compiles it to a binary, and distributes the binary without his C code
under the GPL then A is ipso facto making the binary the preferred form
for making modifications so far as A's licensees are concerned. The
binary is thus GPL-compatible.
I.e., "preferred" means "preferred among those that have been published
by the author".
Some people have suggested that this interpretation would have dire
consequences but I don't see how it would. Most authors who license
their works under the GPL also provide a form of the work in a high
level language and thereby implicitly designate that form as the
preferred form for making modifications.
The alternative view holds that one of A's licensees can't distribute
the binary because A has given her the right to distribute only on
the condition that the binary is distributed along with the preferred
form for making modifications, and A hasn't given her the preferred
form for making modifications.
Now _this_ view does have negative consequences. On this view, A
cannot effectively use the GPL to distribute code unless A is willing
to publish the code in the form upon which A actually made modifications.
Suppose A has a proprietary system that generates C code which can then
be compiled into a binary. A uses the system to generate a cool
program and wants to GPL it so that the free software community can
improve it. But no, A can't do this (on the present interpretation
of the GPL) because A isn't prepared to release the program in whatever
original language was used by A's proprietary code-generating system.
Basically my argument is that authors should be able to use the GPL
while remaining free to choose which forms of their program that
they publish.
Licensees are in a different position than licensors. If the
licensor has GPLed a set of program forms, the licensee is obligated
to distribute the preferred form among these along with any other
forms that she distributes.
--
Thomas Hood
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Reply to: