6 Aug
2009
6 Aug
'09
1:15 a.m.
On 6 Aug 2009, at 01:44, drew Roberts wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:32:03 Simon Jenkins wrote:
Yes. One of you is missing the source code ;)
From "What is Copyleft?"
(http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/copyleft.html)
"To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we
add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives
everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's
code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms
are unchanged. Thus, THE CODE AND THE FREEDOMS BECOME LEGALLY
INSEPARABLE" [Emphasis mine]
From the FSF GPL Howto:
(http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html)
"Whichever license you plan to use, THE PROCESS INVOLVES ADDING TWO
ELEMENTS TO EACH SOURCE FILE of your program: a copyright notice (such
as “Copyright 1999 Terry Jones”), and a statement of copying
permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of
the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL)." [Emphasis mine]
IANAL etc etc but these both suggest that the source code is where the
copyright and license REALLY reside, hence no actual source == no
actual license regardless of whether the distributor TOLD you a binary
was GPL, or even supplied you with the text of the GPL to go with it.
~ Simon
Until and unless you have Bob's preview
source files
with GPL headers all present and correct, you don't have a license
for
the mods in that code.
Huh?
If I get a binary from someone that claims to be GPL, the GPL surely
gives me
the rights needed to "de-compile", disassemble, etc the binary and
put the
result out in source form. (Assuming the program is legit GPL.)
Is one of us missing something?