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

Re: Defining 'preferred form for making modifications'

Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> It seems to me that if you are right, then there is no way to enforce
> the GPL: because then someone could simply modify the object file in
> some interesting and useful way (say, to change a string constant,
> usually pretty easy), and then claim that the C code isn't source at
> all, and thus need not be distributed.
> I submit that this is therefore clearly *not* the correct
> interpretation, and that in such a case, the original C code is still
> an essential part of the source, even though it no longer can be
> automatically transformed into the binaries that you are distributing.

Modifying in an interesting and useful way like running "strip" on the
I don't think the GPL can be subverted so easily:

The stripped binary (foo_stripped.exe) is a derived work from the original
binary (foo.exe).  In order to distribute a derived work, you must
distribute[0] the "complete source".  The "complete source" for
foo_stripped.exe consists of foo.exe and the command `strip foo.exe`.  In
order to distribute foo.exe, though, you must distribute[0] its "complete
source" also.  That means you must distribute[0] foo.c.

[0] Or give a written offer, or pass along a written offer.

Reply to: