Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru> wrote:
> 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.

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.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu