Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

[Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>]

On Wednesday 27 June 2007 22:37:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
> > Behind a barrier is not on a medium customarily used for software
> > interchange, which 3a requires.
>
> Are you per chance claiming that you've never heard of anyone
> receiving encrypted software in a CD, or pre-installed in a computer?

It isn't common. In fact, I can only think of *ONE* instance of this - that of 
the original Quake 1 "Demo" CD that, when given the proper unlock codes, 
contained the entire game, along with all previous idsoft games.

> >> > I honestly don't see what relevance this could possibly
> >> > have. Getting access to the source is a fundamental GPL right.
> >>
> >> That's the spirit.  But where does the *letter* of the GPL state it?
> >
> > 3a says it.
>
> It says the sources must accompany the binaries (check), must be
> machine-readable (check), and must be on a medium customarily used for
> software interchange (check).
>
> Where does it say you have to be able to access the sources?  Or the
> binary, for that matter?

Section 3 doesn't apply to this situation. However, other sections do. They 
are distributing in line with the distribution requirement, but not 
the "modification and copying" requirements. These are granted early in the 
license and covered by the "no further restrictions" clause.

You have to be able to copy and modify the source code for it to comply with 
the GPL. 

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.