"Matthijs Kooijman" <matthijs@stdin.nl> wrote in message news:20080929132611.GO15228@katherina.student.utwente.nl...
In short, I think it is better to avoid the matter alltogether and not try to make section 3 apply to this work. This automatically happens when you apply a strict interpretation of "object code and executable form". Since not applyingsection 3 is not really a problem for us, I mainly want to confirm if this interpretation of the GPL is in fact an acceptable one.
The interpretation you made here was perfectly reasonable, although to be on the safe side, when using works from pther people one should include any form of source they reasonably can to sastify all reasonable interpretations. When a person releases thier own work under the GPL it is never a problem for them to interpret the terms more permissively than some other might. So I see no issue, unless you try to rely on your interpretation when using GPL'd work from a different copyright holder. In that event you would want to clarify the potential ambiguity with them first, or just stay on the side of caution, and include source according to what seems to you to be the preferred form of further modification.