[Gllug] Hypothetical GPL question

[David Damerell]

On Monday, 8 Oct 2001, Paul Brazier wrote:
>Suppose I write a program directly in machine code, could I then release
>the binary as GPL without having to distribute any "source code". In
>effect the binary being its own source code.

Yes - but it is extremely unlikely that you would write in machine
code and not in assembler. Even if you did, the GPL would then permit
people to disassemble the binary and get assembler.

I'm not sure why you would want to, though. The GPL isn't designed to
impose restrictions on the author of a program; it's designed to allow
the author to grant permission to others; so discussing how the author
can somehow evade something he put there himself is kind of wierd. If
you want others to modify your work, don't release machine code; if
you don't, what benefit do you expect to get from using the GPL?

>I'm not sure why someone would want to do this :-) but it raises the
>question of what *is* source code - does it have to easily
>human-readable?

What the GPL discusses is the 'preferred form for making modifications
to the work'. For a C program, that's the C source not run through an
obfuscation process. For an assembler program, that's the assembler
source. If you do write in machine code, that's the _only_ form for
making modifications.

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

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