Lewis Jardine wrote: > Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> If you still insist, consider this: If I would know i386 assembler >> (which I don't), I could theoretically hand-optimize software before I >> upload it. Since I did hand-optimization, the resulting binary would no >> longer be built using only Free Software; it would also incorporate the >> fruit of my labour. Is the resulting binary now suddenly non-free -- or, >> at least, should it go to contrib instead of main? If so, why? If not, >> what's the difference between this example, and the question of >> icc-built software? >> > Wouldn't the resulting Binary be non-free, as it no longer comes with > the complete source (the 'preferred form for modification', as the GPL > puts it)? Your hand-optimised assembler code is now part of the source, > and if you don't provide the assembler source, the source is not complete.
That's correct: in order to satisfy your obligations under the GPL, you would need to provide the hand-optimized assembler code. (It is possible, of course, that Wouter is suggesting direct modification of the machine code; if that is indeed your preferred form for modification, then providing it is sufficient. I seriously doubt that is a common occurance, and at a minimum it should be clearly documented if it is the case.) - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
