On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:47:58 +0000 (UTC) "Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rui > Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Maybe, but since there's no source code, there's little value in > >using the GPL, and if it was used, a distributor could find himself > >in infringement since he could not comply with the source related > >parts. > > That's very interesting. What exactly does "source" or "preferred > form for making modifications" mean in this context? Is it whatever > the copyright holder decrees it to be (the binary itself in this > case), or is there some absolute standard for what "source" is, > related to the form in which the program was *originally* written? There can only be what the copyright holder decides the "source" code to be. If there's nothing left but the binary, then obviously the GPL makes little sense; any license that permits distribution of the program would be equally effective. > GPLv2 Section 3 states: > >The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > >making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source > >code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any > >associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to > >control compilation and installation of the executable. > > So... is "preferred form" referred to the *original* author, or to the > immediately upstream provider? Thinking of binary-only redistribution > as similar to reimplementation in INTERCAL seems to work for me: you'd > be redistributing a *derived* work, and you only need to provide the > source code for the *derived* work, not the original. Yes? No? You only need to provide what you received, or prepared under the GPL. Thus, if you re-implement a GPLed work in Perl you only have to distribute the source code of the derivative work (though providing the original in Intercal would be a nice gesture :-) to comply with the GPL. > Three bags full? of goggas, man :-) -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
