[Gllug] Hypothetical GPL question

[Paul Brazier]

> > If you can demonstrate the ability to open a hex editor and write
> > working machine code, then there is nothing to stop you 
> calling the .EXE
> > the source code.
> 
> Yes, there is; it is not the `preferred form... for making
> modifications'. Hence, under the GPL, it is not source code.
> 
> (Sheesh, does nobody *read* the GPL before commenting on it?)

What if you deliberately wanted to be awkward ;), had a good memory of
the hex representation of machine code (or could refer to a book), and
wrote a small program directly into the hex editor? In that case the hex
editor *would* be the preferred method for making modifications, because
the whole point of the exercise would be to be intentionally
obstreporous (is this the right word?) in writing a program that comes
as close as possible to the boundary condition of the GPL without
actually crossing it.

Of course, you couldn't write a very big program this way
(understatement) and it wouldn't be very useful, really just an
intellectual oddity. But I still claim you could have a GPL program
where the binary *is* the source code.


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the originator.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked
for the presence of computer viruses.

**********************************************************************


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug