On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote: > Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my > scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C. > Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately deletes the C > files. Then he distributes the compiled binary. By the "if the > source does not exist any more, what is left is source" rule, the > compiled binary now is its own source because it is the (only and > thus) prefered form for making further changes.
Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian should actually be distributing the work in question anyway.] > I feel that this is against the spirit of copyleft, so I am > surprised that it is claimed not to be against the letter of the > GPL. > > I do not understand what it has to do with privileged positions. Because the source no longer exists, the upstream is not in a privileged position for making future modifications. Copyleft is fundamentally about putting the users of a program on the same footing with the same freedoms as the creator of a program. Don Armstrong -- Leukocyte... I am your father. -- R. Stevens http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1546 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
