Brian Thomas Sniffen said: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work, >> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is >> that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold >> storage never to be touched again, and made substantial modifications >> to to C code. I believe the GPL permits this type of evolution, without >> requiring the old, useless, outdated Pascal code be dragged along for >> all >> time. > > I think you'd agree that just running p2c over pascal code serves as > an obfuscation, and the resulting C isn't source. But after you've > made substantial changes, it probably is the source.
I disagree that you, as a non-copyright holder for my original Pascal program, can unilaterally declare that distributing obfuscated (i.e. non-Pascal) works satisfies your responsibilities under the GPL. For your work, yes, the C code can be source, but for mine, it isn't. --Joe
