On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: > 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. If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3 at all. Eg, you could claim that the compiled version of the Program's source is "the Program." Alternatively, you could recieve the binary itself from a party and distribute modified versions of it to additional parties without distributing the source, thus circumventing the GPL itself. Because section 3 specifically refers to the distribution of object code, whereas section 2 refers to the program, in the context of distributing a modified version of the program source, it is the appropriate section to apply to object or executable code only versions. While it's possible that this particular interaction of the license with object code is less clear than it should be, I don't think Debian should be in a position of distributing object or executable code that is erroneously placed under the GPL. [Furthermore, it's rather plain that we would be unable to fullfill 2c et al. for these files as well, so this whole discussion is moot.] Don Armstrong -- Of course, there are ceases where only a rare individual will have the vision to perceive a system which governs many people's lives; a system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that the system really is there and that it aught to be exited from. -- Douglas R. Hofstadter _Gödel Escher Bach. Eternal Golden Braid_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature