Glenn Maynard wrote:
A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert it to C (a fairly simple task), and then spend a few weeks improving the program in C. The Pascal code may be useful for reference, but it is no longer the source to the resulting work, neither by my instinctive opinion of "source" nor by the "preferred form for modification" metric. I don't believe I would be in violation of the GPL to distribute the resulting binaries with only the C code, and not the Pascal code. I believe this is a strength of this definition of "source", not a weakness.
As I understand it, programmatically converting the Pascal code to C does not introduce any creative element. So as far as copyright is concerned, the C code is the exact same work as the Pascal code. (Just as the object or executable code is the same Original Work)
You own the copyright of modifications (assuming they are a creative work), that is: in the elements of the derived work that you created, as well as in the creative combination of your works with that of the Original Work.
In order to distribute the derivative work, you must distribute under the terms of the GPL. That means that you must include (or offer) the "preferred form for modification".
The preferred form for the Original work is Pascal. The preferred form for the new (combined/derived) work is C. I think you would need to distribute both to comply with the GPL.
Another way to look at it is:The Original Work has its "preferred form" set in the GPL at license time by the Original Author as Pascal code. Since you can't change the license, you can't distribute the Original Work (as embodied in parts of derivative works) without that form.
--Joe -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.5.1 - Release Date: 12/13/2004