|
Le samedi 12 mai 2012 22:56:39, Russ Allbery a écrit : > "Thomas Preud'homme" <robotux@celest.fr> writes: > > Are you referring to [1]? Because the full paragraph is about Program's > > source code. > > > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00260.html > > > > " 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source > > code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously > > and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice > > and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to > > this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other > > recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the > > Program." > > > > To me Program should be read here as "Program in source code form" > > Program is explicitly defined in the GPL and that's not what the > definition is. > > This License applies to any program or other work which contains a > notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed > under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, > refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" > means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: > that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, > either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another > language. > > So Program is anything with a notice saying that the GPL applies to it. > And since you're required to preserve such a notice in derivative works as > another one of the requirements in point 1 (which is incorporated into > point 3), all derivative works will have such a notice.
Agreed.
> > It's not phrased very clearly, certainly. The GPL 3 fixes this. But you > have to split a lot of hairs to convince yourself that Program refers only > to source code distributions. (Which didn't stop people in that > discussion from splitting those hairs, but I didn't find it convincing.)
After considering the definition of Program you pasted above, I come now to a new interpretation. I will consider GPL-3 from now on as differences with GPL-2 can be seen as a clarification of the intent of GPL-2.
My understanding is that Program refers to any form in which the copyrighted work can be expressed. GPL-3 explicitely writes about source form and non-source form of a work. So a Program, whose definition is given as being a copyrighted work under GPL, has a source code form and a object code form. Program doesn't equal object code form but any form.
Back to the redistribution. In the section 4 (Conveying Verbatim Copies), what is discussed is the redistribution of the Program as source code form. Every word is part of the same sentence, whose structure is: You may convey verbatim copies (…) provided that <item1> ; <item2> ; <item3> ; <item4>.
I agree that the fact section 6 refers to section 4 is very (at least to me) ambiguous. I think the sentence must be read this way:
You may convey, in object code, a covered work which is under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that …
That is, "under the terms of sections 4 and 5" applies to "covered work", not "covered work in object code". Maybe I'm just reading it the way I want to read it. However the structure of section 4 really leads me to consider only source code. The whole section is dedicated to source code redistribution, object code has nothing to do with it as it is the object of section 6.
Also, since the license always requires the source to be distributed, it doesn't seem very important to have the license in both binary code and source code.
> > > As to point 3 referring to points 1, it says: > > > > " 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of > > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the > > following(…)" > > > > I don't think it means the object code must provide a license, just that > > the program which is redistributed respect points 1 and 2. > > Point 3 says that, when distributing the Program, you have to comply with > all of the requirements of point 1. Point 1 says "...and give any other > recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." > > In order to believe that this requirement does not apply, you have to > believe that, because point 1 says "the Program's source code" at the > start, that means that it doesn't apply to distributions of the Program > that are not source code, despite the fact that point 3 explicitly says > that the requirements of point 1 apply. I don't think that's a reasonable > interpretation, since by that reading the statement in point 3 that you > have to follow point 1 is meaningless (it doesn't add any additional > requirements). There's a standard rule in US contract law that says that > you must always favor the interpretation of a contract that does not make > parts of the contract meaningless.
You should consider however that point 3 deals about distributing the source with the binary code and point 1 would apply to this source.
> > The GPL 3 fixes this ambiguity too, btw, by making it explicit that you > have to distribute a copy of the license with binary works, which is more > evidence of what the intent is.
Huh? Where?
Best regards.
Thomas Preud'homme |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.