Re: GPL traitor !

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> Are you seriously suggesting that I can't compile unmodified GPL'd
> source code and release the result under the GPL license? Hmmmmm...

Of course not. Why would you think I'm suggesting that? The GPL says:
    <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html>
    6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
    You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
    of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-
    readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in
    one of these ways:

> I'll bet many GNUtians would be unhappy with your conclusion since GPL
> sec. 2 allows this.

Which conclusion of mine do you believe is contrary to GPL section 2?

> Source to object compilation is without question a "translation"
> from one language (source languge) to another (object language)
> that comprises a derivative work.

No, this is false. Derivative works are significant auctorial
transformations of a source work, and copyright law gives the
author of the derivative work his own copyright in it.

Machine translation into object code produces what the copyright
office considers to be the same work for registration and identity
purpose. Permission to copy and distribute such an altered form of
a work continues to rest exclusively with its original author, as
granted by 17 USC 106(1).

(I suspect we're going to be in for some very long discussions
once machine translation of one human language to another becomes
good enough.)

> "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it."
>
> I prefer assembler or machine readable code, since I grew up on IBM
> assembler programming. Note how the GPL has a hole a mile wide:

What hole? Why do you believe your preferences are a problem?