Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Your severe reading comprehension problem is showing up again.
Your severe legal comprehension problem concerning U.S. law is
showing up again.
There is absolutely not requirement that the source has have to
be "changed" in any shape or form by the GPL.
The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the
binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the
source (and the very *same* source for the binaries) available.
You claim this because of sec. 3(a) of the GPL:
*******************************************************************
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or . . ."
*******************************************************************
Section 3 of the GPL incorporates Section 2 which is rendered
unenforceable due to 17 USC 301(a). The GPL was authored by legal
quacks who denied that a copyright license a contract so as to evade
the consequences of 17 USC 301(a).
http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html
Failing to do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright
law
Not under U.S. copyright law.
Nobody can come up with "the source is not changed, hunt it down
yourself"
< snip >
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
