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

From: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>
Cc: davids@webmaster.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:45:18 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <or1wfwznz5.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200706272251.48884.dhazelton@enter.net> (Daniel Hazelton's message of "Wed\, 27 Jun 2007 22\:51\:48 -0400")

On Jun 27, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:

> 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.

Let's hope courts see it this way.

But then, why is it that I can't use hardware to stop someone from
copying or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
someone from copying or modifying the binary?  Or is that not so?

Remember, section 2 talks about modifying *your* *copies* of the
Program, without any reference whatsoever as to whether they're in
source or object form.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}