[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: Backdoor GPL in message-digest

From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: Backdoor GPL in message-digest
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:51:29 -0700

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Magnus Achim Deininger <address@hidden> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:19:42 +0200, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
Interesting point... but again, it's hard to draw a line when obfuscated code turns obfuscated enough to not count as "source" anymore. A similar problem arises when your proprietary programme is actually written in assembly and you're using a GPL'd library. You might keep your documentation and comments in separate files from the actual assembly code (maybe even for a valid reason instead of a constructed one, like you'd like keep it all documented in LaTeX or something). I'm not sure if the GPL requires you to release internal documentation, but IIRC it does not, so then even if you do release the source and thus comply with the GPL, it's virtually identical to a disassembly of the generated object file, which would violate the GPL's requirements (as  
merely releasing object files to link against only works with the LGPL).

Sorry, but this is FUD. It's very easy to draw that line. "Source" is the preferred form for making modifications. It's whatever the actual developer edits, and not some massaged, altered, adapted thing, no matter how obfuscated or not.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]