This comment is posted in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY to the extent permitted by law; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ;)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As my software will be only scripts, I will not, strictly speaking, distribute > something under a binary format. What does "binary format" mean in that > specific case ? Is it really a binary compiled with gcc, or does it have a > broader meaning, like "software in it's realeased format" ? The latter is probably correct. 'Executable form' looks like the best wording here. F.e., JavaScript files in Mozilla source contain preprocessor macros, as a result their executable form differs from the source code. In addition, executable form usually gets some packaging to ease installation. And as Gerv said, you cannot use GPL for this package, unless you drop those non-GPLed files. When you distribute source code, you can claim that you are distributing two separate sets of files: one under tri-license, and one under MPL only. Applied this way, GPL is valid. Cheers, -- Sergey Yanovich _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
