On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 05:10:12 +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>It doesn't require that you distribute the tools for editing the
>source, though. For example I believe it is fine to distribute a
>program for Microsoft Visual Studio, in the form of the files you
>would actually use with Visual Studio, even though the format of
>some of those files is not documented.
So then suppose the tool I use for modifying the source code
unpacks/decrypts it, allows changes, and then packs/encrypts it
again. Suppose further that this tool is proprietary and not
available without onerous licensing requirements. Would you say
releasing the source code thus packed/encrypted meets the GPL?
If not, then what would? The decrypted/unpacked form of the source
is not the preferred form for making modifications.
It seems to me that if you can't distribute the source in its
preferred form for modification such that it can actually be used and
modified without complying with some other more restrictive license,
you cannot comply with the GPL. The alternative is to say that you
can distribute utterly useless "source" and still comply with the
Anyway, this has veered off-topic for this list. I apologize for
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:17 EST