Binaries under GPL(2) (was: Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source)
25-Nov-03 19:19 Walter Landry wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Walter Landry wrote:
>> Richard Braakman <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
> I take it back. Section 2 says
> You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
> it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
> distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
> and Section 1 requires source code.
More precisely, requires "such modifications" to be source code, right?
Section 3 uses the same language:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
of Sections 1 and 2
and "the Program in object code or executable form" is clearly not
source code. Why "such modifications" in section 2 must be source
code? What is the difference?
IMHO it's more natural to read "under the terms of Section 1" as
referring only to conditions enumerated in section 1 after "provided that":
... you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact
all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any
warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of
this License along with the Program.