[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

Scripsit Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > Remember that we're talking about the non-standard situation where
> > the object code *itself* is "the Program" to which the copyright
> > holder applied the GPL.

> Sure, and I'm arguing that because you're distributing only object or
> executable code, not source, Section 3 applies.

Section 3 applies if you want the rights secion 3 gives you. If you
can get the rights you need from some other source (in this case:
section 2) you don't need to worry about section 2. The sections are
independent grants of rights.

> It's the only permision grant that specifically covers what you are
> distributing,

In our hypothetical case, section 2 specifically covers what's being
distributed to, because what's being distributed is "the Program",
which is what section 2 specifically applies to.

> I'm fairly confident that this is similar to Eben Moglen's
> interpretation of the license, but perhaps you should ask him to
> clarify it for you?

I don't see any reason to bother him with this. If you think it is
worth his time to spell out what's plainly there in the license for
you, go ahead.

Henning Makholm       "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
                 useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."

Reply to: