Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/20/05, Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net> wrote:
> GPL 1, 2, and 3 apply to distributions in "object or executable form".
> GPL 1 and 2 apply to distributions in source code form. The GPL has
> *clearly* and *intentionally* placed additional restrictions (given in
> section 3) on binary distribution.
Sure.
But "distribution" and "bits on the wire" aren't equivalent.
> That is why whether we distribute in source or object for matters,
> because the FSF made it so when they drafted the GPL. This is not some
> trivial technical workaround trying to exploit a arcane loophole in the
> license; it is a difference that --- judging from the license, the
> preamble, and the position statements on fsf.org --- the FSF considers
> extremely important.
>
> BTW: Most piece of modern, open-source software I've seen comes with a
> "few simple commands" to build and install a binary; they typically are
> "./configure; make" or just "make". Are you arguing they are effectively
> distributing a binary, too?
As a general rule, those commands don't go figuring out where to
get the sources and download them for you. Nor are they specially
documented in the distributor's notes on the package.
Anyways, as long as the I_WANT_OPENSSL is something that's
considered valid all the way upstream for all the GPLed code, I
don't think this is a problem -- it's just yet another case of someone
not licesning things the way they wanted to license them.
--
Raul
Reply to: