On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 20:57, Richard Braakman wrote: > And section 3 specifically says "distribute under > the terms of Sections 1 and 2", so it can't be more permissive than > those sections. In fact, it imposes an extra requirement. That's not quite correct. Section 1 covers distributing the source code (and only source code) without changing it. There are almost no restrictions on this act. Section 2 says you have the option of changing that source code, and then distributing that changed code as in section one (i.e., in source form), so long as you note your changes, license under the GPL, and some stuff about what the program must display when it starts up. Section 3 says you can also distribute binaries, given that you mark all your changes, etc. (the terms of section 2), include source code with the relevant notices (the terms of section 1), and, in addition do one of the famous three things [machine readable with it, 3yr offer from you, 3yr offer from someone else]. > I read section 3 as being an additional restriction on modifications > that are also "object code or executable form". The open question is > then whether an executable script is in "executable form". It truly does not matter if an executable script can be called "object code" or "executable form." Notice that section three says "You may", not "If you distribute ... executable form..." If some part of the license has already given me permission to distribute, there is no reason I would use section 3's permission to redistribute. The section that already gave permission is section 2, because a script is source code. This doesn't open any holes in the GPL; only section 3 give me permission to distribute stuff that isn't source code. So your embedded system would either have to run completely off source code(!) or follow section 3.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part