On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:34:52AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > The C files are derived works of the yacc sources, are they not? The GPL > is already quite clear about permitting redistribution of derived works.
Yes, and what it clearly says is that derived works can be distributed under the terms of section 1. And section 1 only gives permission for distributing "the Program's source code". Hmm, I might be misreading the link between section 2 and section 1, because what section 1 actually says is "the Program's source code as you receive it", which wouldn't make sense for a modified work. I guess that for the purposes of section 2, you could decide that the terms of section 1 start at "in any medium", but that seems arbitrary. Also, it opens up a hole: it would allow the output of obfuscators to be distributed without accompanying source code. (In fact, I don't see anything that stops section 2 from applying to ordinary compiled programs. Section 0 explicitly lists translation as a kind of modification.) So what we would want is for obfuscated code to be distributable under section 3, but that section only applies to "object code or executable form". (Section 3 also refers back to the terms of sections 1 and 2, which I find even more confusing :) > The "preferred form for modification" clause only refers to things that > you MUST distribute under certain circumstances, it places no limitations > on what else you MAY distribute. Indeed, I'm not concerned about limitations, but about lack of permission to distribute it in the first place. Richard Braakman
