Re: Bad license on VCG?
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:27:29AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > 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.
Given the alternatives, it is the preferred form.
> > 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.
I knew someone would come up with that. There is however no other reasonable
interpretation of the GPL possible.
If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then I can immediately
prevent you from distributing, say, gcc by going through the sources,
improving the comments, and refusing to distribute my new version at all.
Nick Phillips -- firstname.lastname@example.org
Make a wish, it might come true.