Re: Bad license on VCG?
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 05:54:07PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you receive it,
You omitted #3, which amends #1, and we're not obviously "fine" there.
I don't know how you can possibly argue that the source we've received
is the preferred form for modification when the author says the
"Thus, we have uglified some of the files in the distribution: these
are the graph layout modules. These files are not anymore readable
for human being, but they are readeable for the compiler."
Not readable = not modifiable = not the preferred form for modification.
Not the preferred form for modification = we can't distribute binaries.
> And given the package with which we have been provided, that is the obfuscated
I think you're the only programmer I've ever seen claim that obfuscated
source is a preferred form for modification. It's perfectly clear from
the author's text that the obfuscated source is not intended to be
> The definition of source is "the preferred form of the work for making
> modifications", selected from those forms which are available to you.
You're the one amending "selected from those forms which are available
to you." The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of
source, but it's not the GPL's.