Re: GPL on rendered images
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:21:30PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> I disagree that you, as a non-copyright holder for my original Pascal
> program, can unilaterally declare that distributing obfuscated (i.e.
> non-Pascal) works satisfies your responsibilities under the GPL.
>
> For your work, yes, the C code can be source, but for mine, it isn't.
I think you missed the point.
Merely running p2c on the code doesn't make it the preferred form for
modification. I can't take your Pascal program, hack on it (in Pascal)
for a while, compile and release it, and only offer converted C code,
calling it "source". It's not my preferred form for modification (and
merely claiming it is doesn't make it so; that's just lying).
However, I can take your Pascal program, convert it to C, hack on it
(in C) for a while, compile and release it, and only offer converted
C code. It really is source; it's my real, actual preferred form
for modification. The fact that I actually did my work in C indicates
this.
The former is merely using p2c as an obfuscator, as an attempt to avoid
releasing source; the GPL does not allow this. The latter is a legitimate
change in the source form of the work, which the GPL does allow.
I believe Brian was asking if I agree with the former case, which I do,
not claiming that it was allowed. I think we all agree that the former
case is not permitted by the GPL, and if we were talking about the DFSG,
I suspect we'd all agree it doesn't satisfy DFSG#2, either.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: