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. > > You are right about use, the problem is that the distributor of a binary patch is potentially not in compliance with GPL This is because the patch contains a fragment of the original code linking to the offending library.
Still I maintain that champions of open development tools should work towards larger community use, and actively work to make more people use their tools, instead of creating unneccessary problems for the community. /M _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
