Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source
19-Nov-03 13:25 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote:
>> Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just
>> freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free?
> Yes.
>> Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated to me, so I stick to
>> programming ;-) )
> Thats part and parcel of the GPL... if the company doesn't include the
> prefered form for modification, no one else can distribute it.
Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue?
I.e. why binaries can not be distributed under section 2 of the GPL?
In the thread starting from
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00161.html
opinions seem to be divided:
In
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00202.html
Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> It's clear that our basic disagreement is here. I see nothing in
> section 2 that would limit it only to source code.
Correct. Compiling is a form of modification. But are you able to
distribute everything in the object file (including the libraries)
under the terms of the GPL? If not (which is the case most of the
time for compiled languages on non-free platforms), then the GPL
allows a special exemption: Section 3.
In
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00220.html
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> writes:
> If we go by your interpretation, then any self-contained GPL executable
> (for example, a flash image for an embedded linux system) can be
> distributed without source code.
A GPL-d program in which the "original" is not source code is
incoherent. Section 2 applies to distribution of *source code*.
Sasha
Reply to: