[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation

On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:

> > 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?

I'm not claiming anyting of that sort. I use the word "binary" to mean
whatever I'm distributing and need the GPLs permission to distribute.,

> 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,

I used the term "binary" as an abbreviation of a concept because I needed to
refer to that concept twice in my main claim.

> However, from context, it looks as if you mean "binary" to mean "file"
> and not "program".


Henning Makholm

Reply to: