On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote: > 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? When binaries are not the prefered form for modification, as in the case where there is still source code extant[1], in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.) Don Armstrong 1: In my opinion anyway, it is not enough that source is not available to the secondary distributor. If it exists anywhere, it must be provided in order to distribute the code. Furthermore, as a maintainer, you should be very carefull about maintaining a package (or parts of a package) where there is no source available... maintainablility, trojans, et al. all become a much more serious problem without source. -- America was far better suited to be the World's Movie Star. The world's tequila-addled pro-league bowler. The world's acerbic bi-polar stand-up comedian. Anything but a somber and tedious nation of socially responsible centurions. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p122 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature