Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
16-Dec-03 13:34 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 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 question seems to be more like that: is it intentional or is it
an oversight? In any case it's probably better to correct this
because it leads to the situation when all kinds of interpretaions
arise as debian-legal archive shows. Maybe in GPL v3...
> 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.