John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:45:43AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> > I find it hard to believe that anything "produced by mechanical >> > transformation" from a source is object form. Object form is machine >> > code. >> > >> > I can not magically transform a text file into object form by running >> > "tr a-z A-Z" on it. >> >> Sure you can. It's now full of shouting, and no longer in the >> preferred form for modification. No license can reasonably >> distinguish between tr and gnupg -- distinguishing indent is hard >> enough. > > Nobody, including the FSF, defines object form as "not the preferred form > for modification." Just because the source code IS that format does not > bean that everything that is not source code is object code.
But the GNU GPL gives you a license to distribute source code and object or executable form, and nothing else... so if your obfuscated/munged/semicompiled form is neither source nor object, and you only have the right to distribute it under the GPL, my understanding is that you may not distribute it at all. The GPL wisely avoids a strict definition of object form, but I would think that the classic definition -- the product of a mechanical transformation from source or from other objects, and no longer source code -- would work. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen G026 / Secure Technology Solutions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
