Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > "The complete source code for a program which, when running > > normally, consistently includes both QPL and GPL licensed machine > > code must include both QPL licensed source code and GPL licensed > > source code." > > > That concept is central to my argument.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Excellent. Then at least we know where we disagree. > > Other people, including me, use another definition: > > "The complete source code for a binary consists of whatever > is necessary for the recipient to recreate the binary with > modifications of his own." > > where "binary" means the "object code or executable form" that GPL.3 > allows me to copy and distribute under certain terms. Are you claiming that this binary is something that can be executed, or not? > With such differing definitions, it is no wonder that we reach > different conclusions. The GPL doesn't even use the term "binary" as a noun. It seems to me that all you've done is introduce a new term, which you can define however you please. However, from context, it looks as if you mean "binary" to mean "file" and not "program". -- Raul
