Thomas Bushnell, BSG said: > It seems to me that if you are right, then there is no way to enforce > the GPL: because then someone could simply modify the object file in > some interesting and useful way (say, to change a string constant, > usually pretty easy), and then claim that the C code isn't source at > all, and thus need not be distributed. > > I submit that this is therefore clearly *not* the correct > interpretation, and that in such a case, the original C code is still > an essential part of the source, even though it no longer can be > automatically transformed into the binaries that you are distributing.
Modifying in an interesting and useful way like running "strip" on the binary? I don't think the GPL can be subverted so easily: The stripped binary (foo_stripped.exe) is a derived work from the original binary (foo.exe). In order to distribute a derived work, you must distribute[0] the "complete source". The "complete source" for foo_stripped.exe consists of foo.exe and the command `strip foo.exe`. In order to distribute foo.exe, though, you must distribute[0] its "complete source" also. That means you must distribute[0] foo.c. --Joe [0] Or give a written offer, or pass along a written offer.
