Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
> 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.
Ah, that was your agreement with the absence of direct arguments:-)
> 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.
IMHO there is no such a clear division: Section 2 is about any form
(or only source form) while Section 3 is about executable form.
Section 3 is about distribution of executable form and it doesn't
talk about modification at all. All permissions to modify are in
Section 2. Thus, when distributing binaries compiled from sources, the
compilation is under Section 2 and the distribution is under Section
3. That's part of the original confusion--requirement of source form
in Section 2 applies only to distribution, not to 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.
The only difference in distribution under Section 2 and under Section
3 is the requirement for sources.
> 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.
The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start
doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a
license to trump each other?
Sasha
Reply to: