Re: New summary: Binary peripheral software
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:45:18 +1000
Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
You realise that some people actually distribute GPL-licensed works in
binary form, and that that binary form is the form they modify?
(Say, image files anyone?)
The GPL is vague about "preferred form for modification" for a reason.
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud.
After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.
OpenPGP v4 key ID: 4096R/59DDCB9F
Fingerprint: CC53 F124 35C0 7BC2 58FE 7A3C 157D DFD9 59DD CB9F
Retreive from subkeys.pgp.net or risk key corruption