On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote: > > 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? I'm not claiming anyting of that sort. I use the word "binary" to mean whatever I'm distributing and need the GPLs permission to distribute., > 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, I used the term "binary" as an abbreviation of a concept because I needed to refer to that concept twice in my main claim. > However, from context, it looks as if you mean "binary" to mean "file" > and not "program". Excactly. -- Henning Makholm
