Re: New summary: Binary peripheral software
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 08:33:45PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> No, that's not acceptable. Because that means that we just can drop
> DFSG #2. However, if the upstream maintainer (not necessarily the
> copyright holder) _treats_ the binary as source for his own changes,
> than it is the source.
What's to stop somebody distributing binaries for a program,
licensed under the GPL, and when asked for the source (in the preferred
form for modification), saying the binary is it? For any binary at all.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>