Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
Nobody seems to have picked up the simple fact that the GPL does not
explicitly state 'you must distribute this license with executable code'.
What it does is state 'you must distribute executable code with the
complete source code, an offer for the complete source code, or the offer
you got for the complete source code if you're a non-commercial entity',
and then 'you must distribute this license with the complete source code'.
The statement 'you must distribute this license with executable code' is
an implied reading of GPL section 1 Out Of Context. Note that section 1
begins by talking about program source code. Section 2 talks about
modifying the Program, and takes the assumption that the prefered method
of modifying the program is through the source code. Section 3 talks
specifically about the Program in object or executable code. Section 3
also states that source code is the prefered form for making modifications
to the work.
Yes, section 3 says the executable code must be distributed under the
terms of sections 1 and 2, but sections 1 and 2 don't explicitely mention
a requirement to distribute the GPL with executable code. Also, nowhere in
the preamble does it state that the word 'Program' refer to the program in
any specific state (source, executable code, or intermediate form), so it
is reasonable to assume the specific state of the program by the way the
word 'Program' is used in context, per section.
The only possible way I get 'you must distribute this license with
executable code' out of the GPL is IF, in section 1, I forget that
section 1's stated purpose is to provide for copying and distribution of
program source code, and read 'source or executable code' into it.
I will admit to section 1 being a little bit vague. *sigh* The word
'Program' is used only twice in section 1, and first is found in the
context of distributing and copying the source code thereof.
*sigh* This topic seems to almost be turning into a flamefest.
Mr. Stallman, I would respectfully request this ambiguity be addressed in
a future revision of the GPL; I request also that at least one of Debian's
official policy-makers follow me in this request, as I'm merely a
'developer in-training' and want a more experienced person in Debian to
guide me. Who knows, it's conceivable for me to be completely off-track on
occation.
I'm reading the GPL and following the arguments in this thread as a Cog
Sci student (which I will be again when I get back into a 4-year
institution), not as someone with experience in contract law. I leave that
to the lawyers.
; bleah.
Reply to: