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

Re: Binaries under GPL(2)




On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:

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?

If one section of a legal document is more specific than an other, it is normal to follow the more specific one. So, if GPL 3 covers a specific modification, and GPL 2 covers any modification, and you do that specific modification, you follow section 3, not section 2.

In general, you don't interpret a legal document to make an entire section irrelevant. A court should ask, What did the FSF intend by putting in a section 3? And they will come to the answer: If you distribute object code, you must follow section 3.

The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know what they'd do then.



Reply to: