Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 19-Nov-03 13:25 Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote: > >> Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just > >> freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free? > > > Yes. > > >> Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated to me, so I stick to > >> programming ;-) ) > > > Thats part and parcel of the GPL... if the company doesn't include the > > prefered form for modification, no one else can distribute it. > > 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? > > In the thread starting from > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00161.html > opinions seem to be divided: > > 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. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
