Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > They could, and we'd laugh at them. The point is that we would be perfectly > within our rights to distribute it, and that whether or not we chose to do > so would be an entirely separate question.
No. If you distribute your own files under the GPL, but don't actually provide source, then you have failed to provide something that anybody else is able to distribute, because all the terms of the GPL require distributing source, and nobody is able to do that. It's not technically a contradictory license, but it's effectively the same. The source is *not* "the most preferred of the available files for making modifications", it's the form *actually* most preferred.
