Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

ferret@phonewave.net writes:

> 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 requirement in section 3 says that the binaries must be
distributed under the terms of section 1.  The terms of section 1 are
to keep intact the copyright notice, disclaimer of warranty,
references to the license, references to the lack of warraty, and to
give a copy of the License.

It's just not that complex.  The question here is not whether a
general shipment of binaries should come with the license, but when a
big giant shipment is broken into pieces like Debian is, how small a
granularity should be the one to which the license attaches.  

Thomas