Re: Bad license on VCG?

[Glenn Maynard <g_dlegal@zewt.org>]

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
following:

"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
> C.

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
modifiable, however.

> 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.

-- 
Glenn Maynard