Re: Heart of the debate
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Don Sanders <dsanders@cch.com.au> wrote
>
> > Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. It contradicts the
> > meaning of "distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" as defined
> > by a copyright lawyer, it requires believing that the author of the GPL
> > used inconsistent language in Section 2b and 3, and it requires believing
> > the definition of the Program be redefined part way through the license,
> > which is horribly convoluted.
>
> I think I have to agree with Raul here. I'm not sure I understand the
> subtleties of the meaning defined by your copyright lawyer friend,
Apparently copyright law has its own vocabulary and certain phrases like
"distributed under the terms" and "have well recognised meanings.
> nor do I
> profess to understand the reason for the subtle difference in wording
> between GPL 2b and 3 (maybe the idea is that somebody having modified the
> program is more in a position to "cause [the new] work... to be licensed"
> than somebody who is merely distributing the Program in executable form; in
> any case I don't like the formulation).
>
> However, the main point seems to be that you want to apply the requirement
> of GPL 3a that "the complete source code must be distributed under the
> terms of GPL 1 and 2" without having, in the scope of that distribution of
> source code, the "Program" signifying "the complete source code".
Yes.
> I can
> understand the feeling that this local change of meaning can be confusing,
> but suppose one does keep the meaning of "Program" unchanged. GPL 1 reads
> "You may copy... verbatim copies of the Program's source... " while GPL 2
> reads "You may modify your copy... of the Program or any portion of it...".
> Now if "Program" is not allowed to (in this context) designate "the
> complete source", then where is anything being required about the complete
> source?
In Section 3 which requires that when a binary (object code or executable
program) is distributed that the complete source code be made available.
Either the complete source code must accompany the binary 3a, or the complete
source code must be made available for a charge no more than the cost of
performing source distribution 3b, or well read 3c.
Does that answer your question?
> It would seem awfully silly if GPL 3 would go to some lengths to
> define the exact extent of "the complete source", only to apply it in a
> requirement in which that extent is immaterial.
>
> It is like you are saying something vaguely in the line of this:
>
> int GPL(int Program)
> { if (Program<=1) then return Program;
> else
> { int t=GPL(Program-1); /* But the meaning of `Program' does not change!!
> */ return Program+t;
> }
> }
>
> Do you see my point?
I think so, I hope I explained myself above.
BFN,
Don.
Reply to: