26-Nov-03 08:22 Walter Landry wrote: > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote: >> > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote: >> >> Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue? I.e. >> >> why binaries can not be distributed under section 2 of the GPL? >> >> > When binaries are not the prefered form for modification, as in the >> > case where there is still source code extant[1], in order to >> > redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be able to >> > provide source (the prefered form for modification.) >> >> Why? Section 2 of the GPL doesn't require to provide source. It >> doesn't talk about source at all.
> Section 2 references Section 1, which does talk about source. Section 3 also references Section 1... >> > 1: In my opinion anyway, it is not enough that source is not available >> > to the secondary distributor. >> >> What is source according to the GPL is an interesting question, but >> that's another question. And answer is only needed when you want to >> distribute something under section 3 of the GPL. So it's not directly >> relevant in case of Debian. Let me quote Walter Landry again >> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00182.html): >> >> Section 3 gives you rights in addition to section 2. Section 3 lets >> you distribute a particular kind of modification that is not allowed >> in Section 2 (a modification that incorporates things that can not be >> licensed under the GPL). But Debian is not doing that, so there is no >> need to resort to section 3. > I have since changed my mind. Nevertheless your arguments seem convincing. That's the problem;-) > I wasn't reading Section 2 closely > enough. Only Section 3 gives you permission to distribute non-source. > Section 1 lets you distribute source, and Section 2 lets you > distribute modified source. Sorry, it's not yet clear to me why Section 2 is not applicable to binaries. Sasha
