On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:11:19 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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 agree entirely.
This is the main strength of the "preferred form for modification"
definition of source. You cannot cheat: you must provide your actual
working form, not another person's one.
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpyx2Htdo6Y7.pgp
Description: PGP signature