David Brodbeck wrote: > Hmm...would it be sufficient to distribute the original source code, plus > either a script to reproduce the binary changes or an xdelta patch?
If the binary were distributed unmodified as well (ie - you had to run the script yourself on the original binary to get the hacked version) then that'd be legal, I suppose. Dunno why anybody would bother, though... > This is an interesting limitation of the GPL. I guess this means that if > you hand-wrote a machine language program for a microcontroller for which no > compiler existed yet, it would be impossible to GPL license it, since > there's no compilable source code? Possibly just the assembler code would be enough. You probably wouldn't write it in 'raw' machine code (please, no followups with tales of "I wrote an entire Fortran compiler by lovingly glueing hex dumps together..."), you'd write it in a mnemonic assembly language. I guess that would do as the source. I wouldn't like to ask RMS about it... -- Illtud Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uwch Ddadansoddwr Systemau Senior Systems Analyst Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru National Library of Wales Yn siarad drosof fy hun, nid LlGC - Speaking personally, not for NLW --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
