On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:53 +0100, John Devereux wrote: > Anders Montonen <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Jun 23, 2009, at 21:20, Freddie Chopin wrote: > >> Anders Montonen pisze: > >>> Right, but section four says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, > >>> *or* > >>> distribute the Program" (emphasis added). If it just concerned > >>> distribution then there would be no room for interpretation. > >> Still I don't see that as a distribution. The patch by itself is > >> WORTHLESS it needs an executable, moreover - a RIGHT executable. > > > > It's not about distribution. The patched binary obviously doesn't > > satisfy the terms of the GPL, so by my interpretation you no longer > > have the license to use it. This renders the patch pointless. > > I may have lost track of the argument here, but surely the GPL is all > about distribution? Are you claiming it also restricts use? > > I don't see anything in the GPL faq that forbids modifying a GPL'ed > program, provided it is not distributed. >
FWIW, the problem with a binary patch is that it contains part of the binary, which is covered by the GPL and contains FTD2xx bits. The same distribution problems exist with a patch as with the program. --Z _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
