The following is a bit of a late reply, but I is probably still worth
making.
"Matthijs Kooijman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In short, I think it is better to avoid the matter alltogether and not try
to
make section 3 apply to this work. This automatically happens when you
apply a
strict interpretation of "object code and executable form". Since not
applying
section 3 is not really a problem for us, I mainly want to confirm if this
interpretation of the GPL is in fact an acceptable one.
The interpretation you made here was perfectly reasonable, although to be on
the safe side,
when using works from pther people one should include any form of source
they reasonably can to sastify all
reasonable interpretations. When a person releases thier own work under the
GPL it is never a problem for them to
interpret the terms more permissively than some other might. So I see no
issue, unless you try to rely on your interpretation
when using GPL'd work from a different copyright holder. In that event you
would want to clarify the potential ambiguity with them first,
or just stay on the side of caution, and include source according to what
seems to you to be the preferred form of further modification.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
