Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote: > > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote: > >> > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3 > >> > at all. > >> > >> And that (together with the intention of the license expressed in > >> Preamble) seems to be the only reason why Section 2 cannot be > >> interpreted as permitting to distribute binaries. There are no direct > >> arguments. Sadly... > > > You still need section 3 if you want to distribute modified binaries > > and remain sane, > > Why? If you can distribute some binaries under Section 2 that means > that there is no requirement of source form in it. Then you can > distribute any binaries under Section 2.
Well, that is why I put in the "remain sane" part. If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a particular kind of modification (compilation), and Section 2 allows any kind of modification. Distributing binaries under Section 2 probably means editting the binaries with a hex editor. You also need to have the rights to distribute everything in the binary under the GPL. With non-free compilers, that may be a problem. With gcc, that probably means more hex editing to include the FSF, HP, SGI, etc. copyrights. However, it does now seem like a hole in the copyleft. While possible in principle, I won't stay awake at nights worrying about it. As Henning said, it is really just an oversight. The intent is clear, which may sway a court more than the explicit wording. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]