Re: Fwd: Re: Heart of the debate
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:07:28AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
...
> > > 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),
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 06:54:02PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> 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)
This would be an issue if you could pick and choose which license
terms you choose to respect. But every license term must be applied in
the way that makes the most sense, in all cases.
It makes more sense (than your interpretation) to look at Section 3 as a
clarification of what is meant by Section 2's phrase "the modified work
as a whole" for the case where binaries are being distributed.
> > 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.
Well, I wasn't there and I'm not sure whether all the issues were
presented, so I'm not even sure whether this agreement was relevant.
> > 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.
Agreed. You have the basic gist of it. Then again, you have to have
more than just the source code to the binary. [If you can't redistribute
it properly that's still a problem.]
--
Raul
Reply to: