On 09/18/15 07:10 PM, Gez wrote:
I wonder if saying that the only license pertains to the source code.
I'd say that the binaries are also covered by the license, since you
are obligued to make the source code available when you distribute the
binaries.
Source code is covered and source changes, if binaries are distributed.
But binaries itself can have whatever licence one wants, if source and
source changes are available.
That is exactly what this thread is about - there is the difference.
If one wants to change binary license of it's own build, one can change
brending and release changed source.
Every user has same power to release binaries if wants to learn building it.
That is why there is so much different Linux distros with all builded
packages around.
But centralised development and binary releasing has it's reasons for
sanity checks, per-patch audit, chain of trust and keeping brending
together with the quality control in one place, to be used by many with
confidence.
GPL requires that user of binaries be informed about their rights as
user and rights to source and changes. So it is not enough to just
display binary license to user.
That is because per license there are no users and developers, everyone
has same rights. That difference is imposed by the need for centralizing
projects and personal abilities.
_______________________________________________
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
