On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:21:30PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: > 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.
I think you missed the point. Merely running p2c on the code doesn't make it the preferred form for modification. I can't take your Pascal program, hack on it (in Pascal) for a while, compile and release it, and only offer converted C code, calling it "source". It's not my preferred form for modification (and merely claiming it is doesn't make it so; that's just lying). However, I can take your Pascal program, convert it to C, hack on it (in C) for a while, compile and release it, and only offer converted C code. It really is source; it's my real, actual preferred form for modification. The fact that I actually did my work in C indicates this. The former is merely using p2c as an obfuscator, as an attempt to avoid releasing source; the GPL does not allow this. The latter is a legitimate change in the source form of the work, which the GPL does allow. I believe Brian was asking if I agree with the former case, which I do, not claiming that it was allowed. I think we all agree that the former case is not permitted by the GPL, and if we were talking about the DFSG, I suspect we'd all agree it doesn't satisfy DFSG#2, either. -- Glenn Maynard
