> It't not justifying, it's *specifying*. If it does not say I'm allowed > to distribute the with-xforms binaries, I cannot do so. > > If it only said, > > "You can distribute binaries linked with xforms." > > I would be allowed to distribute said binaries without sources, which > would open a barn door for proprietary exploitation (make some > modifications, keep them secret, link the modified source with xforms, > sell the binaries withot disclosing the source modification). > > So the amendment has to specify somehow *when* I can distribute the > xforms-linked binarues. And its easier just to refer to clause 3 of > the GPL than re-stating the same conditions in the amendment.
i'm sorry, i wrote without checking what clause 3 was. i thought you meant the 'major components' hack. apologies; yes, it had probably also ought to be mentioned, either referencing section 3 or stating "*if* the xforms linkage is all that's preventing you from distributing it under the gpl" (except better phrased). --p. "For a price I'd do about anything, except pull the trigger: for that I'd need a pretty good cause" -- Queensryche, "Revolution Calling" PGP 5.0 key (0xE024447449) at http://cif.rochester.edu/~jpt/pubkey.txt
