On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:17:54PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > IMO the GPL is purposefully vague on this point; if someone (not just > > the copyright holder) can show reasonably that they preferred a certain > > form for modification, then they've met the terms of the GPL. > This means that I can take your GPLed application, modify the binary > directly (I prefer this form because it is required by my business > model), and redistribute that - without the source to my changes, > since I don't prefer that form. > I reject all interpretations which lead to this result as > fundamentally flawed. I reject all interpretations which prohibit this result as fundamentally flawed. The GPL is not a hastily written license; every word is carefully chosen with the intent of promulgating Free Software, in *all* its forms. If I make non-trivial modifications to a binary, my masochism should not make me ineligible to distribute my work under the GPL. If a program had been released under the terms of the GPL as machine language 40 years ago, would that have been acceptable? If someone transcribes a program's GPL source from PHP to ASP, or perl to python, can he still distribute it under the GPL? The definition of "preferred form" must be contextual. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpduBow_aks6.pgp
Description: PGP signature