Re: Heart of the debate
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> The problem with reading the GPL this way is that it systematically uses this
> phrase when the rest of the GPL (or the designated part) does NOT explicitly
> treat the subject of "under the terms" (in some cases: explicitly not). This
> is most clear in its first real use: "2. You may... copy and distribute such
> modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above". But Section 1 talks
> about "verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it" which
> is explicitly distinct from any modification.
Consider section 1. It says "you may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the
Program's source code provided that you ...". I interpret this as saying "you
may copy (in part or whole) the Program's source code and distribute verbatim
copies of the Program's source code provided that you ...". Even though this is
poor grammar it actually makes sense as otherwise the provisions in section 1
about keeping things intact etc. are irrelevant (how can you not keep
something intact if all you're doing is making and distributing verbatim
copies?).
Under this interpretation the phrase "copy and distribute such modifications or
work under the terms of Section 1 above" makes sense. It's saying if you make a
copy of the Program, any of the files you have modified must contain the
notices that refer to this License (the GPL) etc.
> Same problem with the first
> paragraph of 3, as you noted.
There is no problem for section 3. If you look at Section 0 it talks about the
case where the executable form of the Program contains a copy of the Programs
source code. If the executable form ends up containing (even just part) of
the Programs source code the executable form must fulfill the requirements
specified in section 1 and 2. (And in this exceptional case one would actually
have to apply the GPL to a binary through 2b).
BFN,
Don.
Reply to: