Re: openssl vs. GPL question
On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The phrase "For an executable work, complete source code means all the
> source code for all modules it contains" appears in the text of GPL section
> *3*, which is not specific to "works based on the Program." Such lack of
> attention to license detail from one who has so much to say on the subject
> is truly appalling.
Sorry for the "truly appalling" typo.
Section 2 does indeed open with, "You may modify your copy or copies
of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the
Section 3 opens with: "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a
work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form
under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above ..." Hence the remaining
paragraphs of Section 3 should be seen in this context, with the
proviso that "work based on the Program" is a term formally defined in
Section 0 (and referenced in the opening of Section 2) and that
various terms of art are not. Irrespective of technical meanings that
might be ascribed to "executable", "modules", "interface definition
files", and so forth, Section 3's "executable work" does not "contain"
content that is determined, using the definition in Section 0, to be
outside the "work based on the Program".