Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL?
Scripsit "Juergen E. Fischer" <email@example.com>
> 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."