🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 19634@lokkur.dexter.mi.us, scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes:
>My interpretation of 6a is that source shipment is required, object
>code optional.  But the more I look at it, the less clear it is.  Does
>this mean:
>
>  A: You must ship at least one of: the source or the object.
>    or
>  B: You must ship the source and may optionally ship the object.

6a states that how must supply the machine-readable source for the
(possibly modified) library and either the source code for the
work that uses the library, the object code for the work that uses
the library or both the source and object code for TWTUTL.  This is
case A above.  Case B requires:

1 - a very unusual interpretation of `and/or' in the phrase
    `object code and/or source code;
2 - is more than is required to meet the elaborating clause
    `so that the user can modify the Library and then relink
    to produce a modifies executable...';
3 - is inconsistent with the parenthetic comment that ends
    clause 6a (and which was omitted from the original posting.

Note that if the source for TWTUTL _must_ be available then a user who
changes the contents of definitions files will _always_ be able to
recompile the application to use the modified definitions.

For reference the complete text of 6a is:

    a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
    machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
    changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
    Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked
    with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that
    uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the
    user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
    executable containing the modified Library.  (It is understood
    that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
    Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
    to use the modified definitions.)

> Paul replies (I paraphrase) that one could make the Library into a
> (SunOS-style) shared library.  Then link the application dynamicly.
> Ship the application, the shared library, and the Library source.  The
> application no longer contains the Library, and hence is not "a work
> that uses the Library" as defined in Section 5 and therefore does not
> fall under Section 6.  I feel that this *does* constitute a work which
> uses the library.  Anybody know for sure?

There are good reasons for shipping Sun executables in that form anyway.
I don't think it buys you anything with regard to not disclosing source
since section 6 does not require disclosure of source.

 ======================================================================
Chris Flatters                  |  cflatter@nrao.edu
AIPS Scientific Programmer      |
======================================================================
Opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect NRAO
policy.