On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 05:54:07PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote: > 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's > source code as you receive it,
You omitted #3, which amends #1, and we're not obviously "fine" there. I don't know how you can possibly argue that the source we've received is the preferred form for modification when the author says the following: "Thus, we have uglified some of the files in the distribution: these are the graph layout modules. These files are not anymore readable for human being, but they are readeable for the compiler." Not readable = not modifiable = not the preferred form for modification. Not the preferred form for modification = we can't distribute binaries. > And given the package with which we have been provided, that is the obfuscated > C. I think you're the only programmer I've ever seen claim that obfuscated source is a preferred form for modification. It's perfectly clear from the author's text that the obfuscated source is not intended to be modifiable, however. > The definition of source is "the preferred form of the work for making > modifications", selected from those forms which are available to you. You're the one amending "selected from those forms which are available to you." The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of source, but it's not the GPL's. -- Glenn Maynard
