[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PHPNuke license

Scripsit Simon Law <sfllaw@engmail.uwaterloo.ca>

> 	Let us consider the output of tr a-z A-Z as _not_ source code
> nor object code.  This implies that it is not exempted by section 2, and
> also not exempted by section 3.  So it's not a particularly useful
> definition since you would be bound by pure copyright law, and you'd
> never be able to redistribute.

I think the most reasonable reading of the GPL would be something
like: If you distribute something that is derived from the source
(whether or not it consists of machine code), you have to also
distribute the preferred form for modifying that particular

In most cases "the preferred form for modifying that particular
something" would be the original source itself. However, one can
invent examples where it isn't - but this of course will have to
depend on an assumption about *why* someone might want to modify the
particular something.

Say, for example that I do

   cat *.c | tr a-g A-G | tr -c -d A-G#

in the source directory and proceed to convert the output to a MIDI
file which I call "Ode to Emacs" or something equally silly. I have
now derived a musical work for which the preferred form for modifying
would be the MIDI file, or perhaps some intermediate text file I
used. However, the original C sourse would not be the preferred form
for modifying my song - on the assumption that the reason one would
modify the music is that it sounds awful, rather than there's a bug in
the program it was derived from.

Henning Makholm        "De er da bare dumme. Det skal du bare sige til dem."

Reply to: