On Fri, August 16, 2013 11:06, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being considered derived works with the same requiremnets?
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits it.
Which, if true, is to say that one may not rebuild GPL source on systems whose architecture and/or cpu instruction set are propriety. Binaries are not open by definition. They are built for one specific environment by one specific compiler and one or both both of those may not be covered by a GPL of some sort. How then can such a binary be considered a derived work under the GPL?
The GPLs that I have read are concerned with the source and only the source. From that source you may build the software without consideration of the nature of the build tools and therefore the results (binaries) I believe are not, and meaningfully cannot be, covered by the GPL.