Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation
Scripsit Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
> > "The complete source code for a program which, when running
> > normally, consistently includes both QPL and GPL licensed machine
> > code must include both QPL licensed source code and GPL licensed
> > source code."
>
> > That concept is central to my argument.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Excellent. Then at least we know where we disagree.
>
> Other people, including me, use another definition:
>
> "The complete source code for a binary consists of whatever
> is necessary for the recipient to recreate the binary with
> modifications of his own."
>
> where "binary" means the "object code or executable form" that GPL.3
> allows me to copy and distribute under certain terms.
Are you claiming that this binary is something that can be executed,
or not?
> With such differing definitions, it is no wonder that we reach
> different conclusions.
The GPL doesn't even use the term "binary" as a noun. It seems to
me that all you've done is introduce a new term, which you can define
however you please.
However, from context, it looks as if you mean "binary" to mean "file"
and not "program".
--
Raul
Reply to: