On Jun 23, 2009, at 23:53, John Devereux wrote: > Anders Montonen <anders.monto...@iki.fi> writes: > On Jun 23, 2009, at 21:20, Freddie Chopin wrote: >>> Anders Montonen pisze: >>>> Right, but section four says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, >>>> *or* >>>> distribute the Program" (emphasis added). If it just concerned >>>> distribution then there would be no room for interpretation. >>> Still I don't see that as a distribution. The patch by itself is >>> WORTHLESS it needs an executable, moreover - a RIGHT executable. >> It's not about distribution. The patched binary obviously doesn't >> satisfy the terms of the GPL, so by my interpretation you no longer >> have the license to use it. This renders the patch pointless. > I may have lost track of the argument here, but surely the GPL is all > about distribution? Are you claiming it also restricts use?
You're right, that was poor reading on my part. Regards, Anders _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
