Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Les Mikesell
<lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:50 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:38:44PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> I know the FSF-definition very well. They are defining free in the sense
>>>> of "open source"
>>> I don't think they agree with you there, in fact Richard would probably
>>> be most
>>> upset at such a claim...
>> May-be, may-be not.
>>
>> Fact is: The GPL's notion of freedom is essentially covering freedom on
>> "source code". It's "viral" nature has has some
implications on binaries
>> ("make source code available to customers"), but it nowhere states
that
>> binaries having been built from GPL'ed sources must be
"free-beer".
> There is no distinction between binaries and source in regard to the rights
> recipients have to redistribute them, except for the point that if you
> distribute binaries at all you must also make the corresponding source
> available to the recipeints.
>
Do you have a lawyers advice on that? A courts decision on that? I ask
because I have yet to see legal advice that says that versus common
"well if I were the law, this is what I would interpret it to be."
I'm sure you could pay a lawyer to argue either side for you if you
wanted, but I don't see any possible way to avoid the conclusion that a
binary is a derivative of the original source and the license explicitly
states that it applies to all derivative works.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com