On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:03:06 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
[...]
> That person isn't the copyright holder of the original GPL source, so
> "the source" is defined by the original author.
The source for the *original work* depends on the preferences of the
original author.
The source for some modified ve
On 11/07/06 02:19, Markus Laire wrote:
> On 11/4/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IMO, whenever there's any doubt about which is the preferred form
>> ("preferred by whom?"), we should follow the preferences of the last
>> modifier: if you actually modify a work, you've shown in pra
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:52:27 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Markus Laire wrote:
> > What if a person downloads a GPLed binary and then modifies that
> > binary directly?
>
> If that person can truly say he prefers to hack binaries over
> C code, then yes he can distribute just the binary. That m
Markus Laire wrote:
> What if a person downloads a GPLed binary and then modifies that
> binary directly?
If that person can truly say he prefers to hack binaries over
C code, then yes he can distribute just the binary. That makes
sense because there *is no other form* of the software in that
modi
On 11/4/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO, whenever there's any doubt about which is the preferred form
("preferred by whom?"), we should follow the preferences of the last
modifier: if you actually modify a work, you've shown in practice what
is your preferred form for modificati
5 matches
Mail list logo
