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. > > 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. 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. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
