25-Nov-03 19:19 Walter Landry wrote: > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> In >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00202.html >> Walter Landry wrote: >> >> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > It's clear that our basic disagreement is here. I see nothing in >> > section 2 that would limit it only to source code. >> >> Correct. Compiling is a form of modification. But are you able to >> distribute everything in the object file (including the libraries) >> under the terms of the GPL? If not (which is the case most of the >> time for compiled languages on non-free platforms), then the GPL >> allows a special exemption: Section 3.
> I take it back. Section 2 says > You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of > it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and > distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 > and Section 1 requires source code. More precisely, requires "such modifications" to be source code, right? Section 3 uses the same language: You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 and "the Program in object code or executable form" is clearly not source code. Why "such modifications" in section 2 must be source code? What is the difference? IMHO it's more natural to read "under the terms of Section 1" as referring only to conditions enumerated in section 1 after "provided that": ... you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. Sasha
