Re: New summary: Binary peripheral software
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 10:01:34AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:45:18 +1000
> Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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.
I was talking about executable programs (sometimes known as "software")
specifically. So I'll repeat the question: can I distribute a compiled
version of my software, say it's GPLed, and when people ask for the
source, tell them the binary IS the preferred form for modification?
That seems to be the proposed treatment for firmware. I don't see why
general-purpose software should be treated differently.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>