Le samedi 12 mai 2012 04:25:08, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com> writes: > > So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread. > > > > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html > > I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very > cogent arguments for why it's wrong and providing a complete copy of the > GPL with binaries is required.
Are you referring to [1]? Because the full paragraph is about Program's source code. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00260.html " 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." To me Program should be read here as "Program in source code form" As to point 3 referring to points 1, it says: " 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(…)" I don't think it means the object code must provide a license, just that the program which is redistributed respect points 1 and 2. Best regards.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
