Re: Bad license on VCG?
- To: Nick Phillips <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Bad license on VCG?
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Date: 01 Sep 2002 12:04:57 -0700
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20020901040130.GV7525@hoiho.nz.lemon-computing.com>
- References: <521919208.1030422708435.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20020827061935.GE10005@deadbeast.net> <20020830234438.GG7525@hoiho.nz.lemon-computing.com> <1030755470.19719.14.camel@server1> <20020831014232.GK7525@hoiho.nz.lemon-computing.com> <1030764712.19719.99.camel@server1> <20020831055406.GM7525@hoiho.nz.lemon-computing.com> <email@example.com> <20020901040130.GV7525@hoiho.nz.lemon-computing.com>
Nick Phillips <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 04:52:24AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > 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.
> Since the license is addressed to 'you', I would contend that the 'preferred
> form' would be the form which 'you' would choose to make modifications.
No; that's incorrect. The passive voice here is used intentionally.
It's the form that programmers in general (especially "you" *AND* the
author) would prefer.
> As I pointed out elsewhere, this has the rather amusing side-effect of
> allowing us to link other GPL'ed stuff with the uglified source, but not
> the original author. Which would seem to be 'the Right Thing'.