Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL?
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 17:51:38 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> No, law does not work that way. The phrase "preferred form for
> modification" has a clear enough, if somewhat fuzzy, literal meaning,
> and one cannot *implicitly* make it mean something that directly
> contrast to the literal meaning.
Doesn't that phrase only apply to paragraph 3 of the GPL which covers
source code in case of distribution in object code or executable form.
Paragraph 1 allows distribution of source code "as you receive it" -
which IMHO allows source distribution in the current form. So I guess
distribution of source in main should be ok.
But is this distinction between 1 and 3 intentional and if so, why?
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?