Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
- From: Alexander Cherepanov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 05:57:47 +0300 (MSK)
- Message-id: <2.07b5.XZQJ.HOZPKB@cherepan.mccme.ru.msgid>
- In-reply-to: <20031126015959.GB13199@donarmstrong.com>
- References: <20031126015959.GB13199@donarmstrong.com> <20031119180445.GA6761@bogon.ms20.nix> <20031119184329.GR21640@nimrod> <20031119190632.GI805@bogon.ms20.nix> <20031119190140.GT21640@nimrod> <20031119192655.GK805@bogon.ms20.nix> <20031119193630.GU21640@nimrod> <email@example.com> <20031119195907.GW21640@nimrod> <2.07b5.1DQKX.HOVJTY@cherepan.mccme.ru.msgid> <2.07b5.1HO1.HOXONC@cherepan.mccme.ru.msgid>
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> 24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
>>> able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
>> Section 2 of the GPL doesn't require to provide source. It doesn't
>> talk about source at all.
> Section 3 is the critical point here, as it covers distribution in
> object or executable formats, which is what we would be distributing.
You mean that section 3 should really be read as "If you ... you must
..." instead of "You may ... provided that ..." and must be complied
with irrespective of section 2?
>> Section 3 gives you rights in addition to section 2. Section 3
>> lets you distribute a particular kind of modification that is not
>> allowed in Section 2 (a modification that incorporates things that
>> can not be licensed under the GPL).
> No, section 3 specifically refers to distributing object or executable
> code, not "incorportating things that cannot be licensed under the
Section 3 contains "a special exception" which is a permission for
"incorportating things that cannot be licensed under the GPL." Yes,
it's only applicable to distributing object or executable code.