Re: Bad license on VCG?
Nick Phillips <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you receive it,
> See, we're fine.
Having received no source code, we can distribute that empty set.
This does not allow us to distribute object codennnn.
The permission to distribute object code is contingent on the coupled
distribution of source code, and if we don't have it, we can't comply
with that either.
> Wrong. The original author may not, but since this is the best source we
> have received, it's exactly that that we'd modify.
But that's irrelevant. It's still not the preferred form for making
modifications, all things considered, and it's all things considered
> The definition of source is "the preferred form of the work for making
> modifications", selected from those forms which are available to you.
No. Where is that last clause in the GPL? Hint: it isn't, as
indicated by your comments, and this is crucially intended by the GPL.