Jacob Luna Lundberg wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Preferred by whom? The FSF? Richard Stallman? Hackers in general when
> they take a vote? Programmers in general? What if the market is full of
> VB programmers who prefer VB? What if none of them know assembly? They
> might all vote that assembly isn't a preferred form. If they aren't the
> ones who count, then who does? Maybe the authors count for more than
> other people? If so then it does seem they might like to write binaries
> because they're crazy and they think it's fun or something. I think that
> the intention of the GPL is clear here but the language is not...
The intention _is_ clear indeed. That ought to be all we need really.
If it comes to the worst and somneone in court claims that binary
is their preferred form for _modification_ - have them demonstrate their
way of working to prove it can be done. "Now write 'hello world'
in binary. Wow, you managed that! Now add a triple loop to it..."
This could be really interesting.
Somehow, I believe a driver written directly in binary (without even
assembly source) would be easy to reimplement from scratch in C.
Because it'd be so small.
Helge Hafting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
