Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote: > > Could you please describe the way you read the GPL in more details? > > How do you understand "under the terms of"? What are "the terms of > > Section 1" exactly, in your opinion? > > Section 1 gives you the permision to distribute source, and covers the > general terms for distribution of anything. That is its primary > function. > > Section 2 gives you permision to distribute modified version of the > program's source (and in conjunction with 3, modified versions of the > program's object or executable code.). That's its primary function.
True, that is its _primary_ function. What we're arguing about is whether there is a loophole. If Section 2 mentioned source code in the same way that Section 1 did, then there would be no argument. I think that I have to change my mind back. You can distribute binaries under Section 2, but you have to own *everything* in the binary. As Henning noted, it is just an oversight in the wording. Not a serious one, though. It doesn't break the copyleft. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
