Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
- From: Jeff Carr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:48:00 -0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 45C162F0.email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20070130195405.GV20475@archimedes.ucr.edu>
- References: <20070129190619.GA24521@washoe.onerussian.com> <1170105956.869.29.camel@zhora> <20070129213058.GA4025@glandium.org> <20070129222339.GA23098@kitenet.net> <20070130004715.GQ20475@archimedes.ucr.edu> <20070130084323.GA15842@kitenet.net> <20070130113026.GB22216@volo.donarmstrong.com> <1170166581.869.80.camel@zhora> <20070130173149.GU20475@archimedes.ucr.edu> <20070130190908.GA8609@www.lobefin.net> <20070130195405.GV20475@archimedes.ucr.edu>
On 01/30/07 11:54, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Stephen Gran wrote:
Just pointing out that it doesn't break our ability to
redistribute under the GPL.
This refrain keeps getting repeated, but still no one has explained
how distributing a form of the work which is _not_ the prefered form
for modification satisfies section 3 of the GPL:
It can't be explained because your assumptions are wrong.
You think that section 3 needs to be satisfied based on your
interpretation but it only needs to be satisfactory to the author.
The GPL is not a contract. Rights are granted by the creator.