Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru> wrote:
> 4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote:
> > Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru> wrote:
> >> 30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
> >> > at all.
> >>
> >> And that (together with the intention of the license expressed in
> >> Preamble) seems to be the only reason why Section 2 cannot be
> >> interpreted as permitting to distribute binaries. There are no direct
> >> arguments. Sadly...
> 
> > You still need section 3 if you want to distribute modified binaries
> > and remain sane,
> 
> Why? If you can distribute some binaries under Section 2 that means
> that there is no requirement of source form in it. Then you can
> distribute any binaries under Section 2.

Well, that is why I put in the "remain sane" part.  If I give you
GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you can make
modifications, Section 2 and Section 3.  Section 3 allows a particular
kind of modification (compilation), and Section 2 allows any kind of
modification.  Distributing binaries under Section 2 probably means
editting the binaries with a hex editor.  You also need to have the
rights to distribute everything in the binary under the GPL.  With
non-free compilers, that may be a problem.  With gcc, that probably
means more hex editing to include the FSF, HP, SGI, etc. copyrights.

However, it does now seem like a hole in the copyleft.  While possible
in principle, I won't stay awake at nights worrying about it.  As
Henning said, it is really just an oversight.  The intent is clear,
which may sway a court more than the explicit wording.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu