Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 20:54:37 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I hadn't thought of that, but I don't think it makes a difference. A
> court would be likely to reason thus: Section 1 uses the phrase
> "source code" without defining it. On the other hand, there is an
> explicit definition of "source code" in section 3. In default of
> any contrary indication it mus be assumed that the licensor did not
> intend the phrase to mean different things in sections 1 and 3.
> Therefore, the definition from section 3 applies to the occurrence in
> section 1 also.
Isn't "source code as you receive it" a definition?
In this case even more unmistakable than in paragraph 3. One can only
assume how the author modifies his code and therefore there's
uncertainty whether or not paragraph 3 is met.
Wouldn't a court assume some straightforward intention by licensing the
code under the GPL? Which would be allowing distribution of the
driver, instead of circumventing it.
[X] <-- Nail here for new Monitor!