Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:09:25 -0500 | From | QuoteMstr - Danny Colascione <> | Subject | Re: Module Licensing? (thinking a little more) |
| |
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 05:18:04PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 06:00:45PM +0100, Drizzt Do'Urden wrote: > > Yes, clause 3.a) "machine readable source code". A .s file is, "machine > > readable source code" by the assembler and by people that have enough time > > to lost.. It is like head.S, but using numeric labels and other stuff of > > that kind. > > Sigh. > > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it."
So someone who takes a GPLed Perl program and reimplements it in, say, C can be sued by the Perl person (since he, presumably, prefers Perl)?
-- "He who fights with monsters might take care, lest he thereby become a monster." - Nietzsche - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |