Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > In our hypothetical case, section 2 specifically covers what's being > > distributed to, because what's being distributed is "the Program", > > which is what section 2 specifically applies to. > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3 > at all. Section 3 is necessary in the more common case that "the Program" is not ojbect code but source. > Eg, you could claim that the compiled version of the Program's > source is "the Program." But if that was not what the licensor said was "the Program", I would be lying. > Alternatively, you could recieve the binary itself from a party and > distribute modified versions of it to additional parties without > distributing the source, thus circumventing the GPL itself. Again, only if the licensor has defined the binary as being "the Program". > While it's possible that this particular interaction of the license > with object code is less clear than it should be, I don't think Debian > should be in a position of distributing object or executable code that > is erroneously placed under the GPL. I agree about that conclusion, though I reach it by another route. > [Furthermore, it's rather plain that we would be unable to fullfill > 2c et al. for these files as well, Huh? 2c essentially applies only when one changes a noninteractive program to an interactive one. -- Henning Makholm "Punctuation, is? fun!"
