Le lundi 14 mai 2012 01:59:41, Russ Allbery a écrit : > "Thomas Preud'homme" <robotux@celest.fr> writes: > > 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 reading seems strained to me. > > What I think is the intended structure of the GPL v3 goes like this: If > you want to convey X, you have to do A and B. If you want to do Y, you > have to do everything you'd have to do for X plus C. If you want to do Z, > you have to do everything you'd have to do for Y plus D. This means that, > if you want to do Z, you have to do A, B, C, and D. All the terms are > cumulative; each action listed in the GPL requires doing everything listed > for the previous actions plus some additional things. That's a reasonable reading indeed and the only reason I didn't consider this one is because of the structure of section 4. But I agree with you now, see below. > > In this case, section 4 says: > > You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you > receive it, in any medium, provided that you [...] give all recipients > a copy of this License along with the Program. > > and section 6 says: > > You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of > sections 4 and 5, provided that you also [...] > > So you have to comply with the terms of section 4 and 5, including the > added provisions, which means that you have to give all recipients a copy > of the license. > > > That is, "under the terms of sections 4 and 5" applies to "covered > > work", not "covered work in object code". > > But it doesn't say that. It says "convey a covered work in object code > under the terms of sections 4 and 5." The corresonding wording in the GPL > v2 was more of a mess; this is much clearer. > > > 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. > > But it *doesn't* always require the source to be distributed: > > b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product > (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written > offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you > offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give > anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the > Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is > covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used > for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable > cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access > to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. > > Also 6c, 6d, and 6e, all of which specify circumstances in which you don't > have to distribute the source. So without the requirements in section 4, > it's quite possible for someone to end up with a covered work without a > copy of the license. That part convince me your reading is right. Someone needs the license to know he is allowed to ask for the source if it's not provided. Just giving the copyright and the mention "this program is licensed under GPLv3" is not enough to inform the user of its rights. Besides, I checked a binary archive of emacs yesterday and it comes with the license. It's not a proof of anything per se but a good indication of what is the meaning of this section for the FSF. I still think however that section 4 should have been worded better to make it more clear from the first reading (before reading section 6) that it also applies to binary code form. Right now the structure is "To distribute copies of the source code, the requirements are A, B, C and D". Only because section 6 refers to this the text must be reinterpreted by replacing "source code" by "binary code". But maybe it's just me… Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain me. Best regards, Thomas Preud'homme
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.