On 24-Oct-2006, Alex Hudson wrote: > [distributing codes necessary to run modified programs is] only like > releasing source code in so far as the GPLv3 defines source code to > include authorisation keys.
The GPL has always attempted to define source code such that it includes anything particular to the work necessary to exercise the freedoms of the GPL. > Very few free software authors and distributors who will be roughly > compliant from day one will design in authorisation codes. Which result makes the GPLv3 attractive to many free software developers. > It seems to me that they will be used almost exclusively by those > who are also likely to violate the GPL by not distributing source > code. Perhaps. Those who don't respect the license can be expected to violate it, so this appears to be a no-op. -- \ "What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?" -- Anonymous | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
