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

Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL?

Scripsit "Juergen E. Fischer" <fischer@linux-buechse.de>
> 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.

> Isn't "source code as you receive it" a definition?


It applies to something that we already know to be source code, and
specifies that the permission on section 1 only applies to the
distribution of the version of the source code that one has oneself

Henning Makholm                     "Og når de får killinger siger de miav."

Reply to: