Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy
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:
3. 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 provided that you also do one of the
following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code, [...]
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. [...]
If what you're arguing is that the source code with whitespace removed
is the prefered form for modification that upstream actually uses,
then our premises are different, so the conclusions can of course be
different too. [I'm not in a position to argue one way or another
which of the premises is correct, and frankly, I'm not sure that it's
the right place for -legal to make that determination either. The
maintainer and ftpmaster are the ones who need to make this
determination IMO.]
Don Armstrong
--
Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you. If you don't
bet, you can't win.
-- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p240
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: