Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Jeff Carr wrote:
> 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.
This is the "it's against the license, but the author doesn't care"
argument. It may be true in many cases, but it's not compelling, and
not something that we should even account for in our licensing
discussions, because the owners of copyrights can change, their
attitude towards Debian can change, and even more importantly, their
attitude towards our users and mirror operators can change. [And
really, if that's their interpretation, then they can grant additional
permissions to the GNU GPL.]
If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
-- Lowery's Law