Re: Fwd: Re: Heart of the debate
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:07:28AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > After thinking about the the work based on the Program issue some more I've
> > decided everything I wrote originally is correct. Any response would be
> > appreciated.
> ...
> >> If you define the work as I have then reading through the terms of the GPL
> > sequentially starting at Section 0, continuing on to Section 1 and then
> > proceeding to Section 2 I think we all agree that the terms of the GPL can be
> > satisfied.
> >
> > It is not until Section 3 is reached where under your interpretation (but not
> > mine) the Program is redefined to be the complete source code that there is a
> > problem.
>
> I disagree with this point.
> When a modified work is created (including a binary),
I disagree that the binary is considered a work based on the Program except
under exceptional circumstances (such as the binary containing part of the
Program's source code). Otherwise one could use section 2 to distribute
binaries hence avoid the requirement to distribute the complete source code
required in 3. (Even if you GPL the binary, a binary is an "other work" and
the preferred method of making modifications to it is a hex editor so the
"source code" to a binary is the binary)
> you now have two
> different works and you must consider their licenses independently.
>
> Where you say "the Program is redefined," I'd say "a new work is created
> which is also licensed under the GPL." Where you say "the Program remains
> constant," I'd say "the old work is also licensed under the GPL".
My lawyers (I've consulted a few now) tell me the technical legal term for this
is mutatis mutandis. We had a very long talk today, it's a pity you couldn't
have been there some of them supported your opinions quite strongly. I believe
that the GPL does not use mutatis mutandis. After a long discussion the lawyers
I have consulted agree.
> Unless you claim that it's possible to distribute the new work (created
> when the original work was modified) without a license, I don't see how
> your argument holds together.
The binary is not licensed under the GPL, the GPL does not give you
permission to redistribute the binary if that is all you have.
The GPL does give you permission to distribute the binary if you have the
source code to it.
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
BFN,
Don.
Reply to: