Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > So a tarball with all the sources is somehow different from
> > compiled and linked binary resulting from the same sources
>
> Of course. The former is a verbatim copy of the source code,
> readily reconstructed from its transmitted form. The other is
> not. In any case, the only thing you have argued is that the
> former may not be a verbatim copy either. It seems unlikely that
> such a view would prevail, however.
>
> > See also Section 3
>
> Of what? The copyright code? The GPL? You cannot expect people to
> make your arguments for you, because your arguments are
> invariably incorrect. You need to state your arguments, and then
> we will point out to you how they are wrong.

"Use" of an *unmodified* copy of source code by compiling and
executing on a computer is not restricted by the GPL:

From the GPL section 0:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

Private/internal use (running, copying, modification)
of program is essentially unrestricted.
http://ossipedia.ipa.go.jp/legalinfo/20071221-4.pdf

See also:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/object-code.txt

Sincerely,
Rjack :)