[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: an update to automake-1.11?



On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 14:22 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > How exactly would that violate the GPL?
> 
> You aren't patching the actual source code.

Assuming GPLv2, the term in the license that you're referring to is
"preferred form".  There is clearly some difference of opinion as to
what the preferred form is here.  In a strict construction sense, the
preferred form for modification is whatever the modifier opted to
modify.

More concretely, the source code on offer in section 3 is the
"corresponding source", meaning, the code and changes _you_ used to
produce the binary.  If you changed the generated source, well, that's a
thing you can do, and it means you have to distribute those changes.  If
you change the metasource, that's also a thing you can do, and you have
to distribute the recipe for creating the generated source.

In other words: no.

- ajax

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]