Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003, at 13:29 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG > wrote: > > > Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> I don't think an interpretation of the GPL that says "I wrote this > >> code in C. Forever is C must it stay!" is correct. > > > > Right. All I'm saying is you must distribute the C code; I don't care > > whether you continue to make changes in that language. > > Why would C stay the preferred form for modifying a work for eternity, > even when the current work bares hardly a resemblence to its C > original?
It is *PART* of the source. Not the whole source, but part of it. > So, essentially, you're saying that for either images or translations > to other programming languages, the GPL is a original source + patches > license? Does this apply to human-language translations as well? What > about changes to C code in C? No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that editing a binary cannot remove your obligation to distribute the C source which produced that binary, even if you do a bunch of significant extensive edits, even if you threw away the C source.
