Re: Binaries under GPL(2) (was: Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source)
Scripsit Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
> 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.
I think Alexander's point may have merit. If you distribute whatever
precise bits it was that the copyright holder waved a copy of the GPL
over, those bits must be assumed to be "the Program", and as such GPL
#2 gives you right to distribute a modified version of the bits.
The fact that GPL #3 *also* gives you the right to distribute the bits
under somewhat different conditions should not affect the right given
in #2.
However,
1. This is clearly a wording oversight in the GPL. I'm not sure that
Debian should base its decisions to distrtibute things on such
loopholes.
2. Some kind of modification to the bits is required for #2 to be
applicable. Then one needs to add prominent notices of the
modification to the file. An ELF binary could conveivably
be relinked to contain such a notice in an unused section,
but it's harder do see how to do this for firmware object code
in a closed format.
3. Opaque bits GPL-licensed in this way are not GPL-compatible (!) -
if they are combined with object code produced from GPLed *source*
the resulting work is undistributable.
4. (And, of course, opaque bits cannot be DFSG-free, GPL or no GPL,
due to DFSG #2).
--
Henning Makholm "I ... I have to return some videos."
Reply to: