[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-license
Subject:    Is an Executable a Modification by Definition?
From:       Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers () ISI ! EDU>
Date:       1998-03-26 6:52:05
[Download RAW message or body]

	I was going to start a thread asking if using an object file
editor on an NPL'ed Executable created a Modification to the Covered
Code, and asking whether you could ever meet the requirements of
section 3.2 for distribution, since you don't have any Source Code for
your Modification.

	However, I've thought of something much more basic to ask:

	If you take Original Code and simply compile it, have you
created a Modification?

	I note that NPL 0.95 constrains Original Code to be Source
Code, but it doesn't say that a Modification has to be Source Code.
Since an object file is assumed to contain (be derived from, in the
copyright sense) its source files, and an Executable file is a new
file that isn't part of the Original Code, it appears that by creating
an Executable you've created a Modification, without, of course,
modifying any Source Code.

	If you in turn distribute the Executable you created, then:

1)	You have to create a file that documents your change, which is
	to say, it has to say that you compiled the Original Code.

2)	You have to distribute that change notice file with each copy
	of the executable that you distribute (because an Executable
	is a Modification, and a Modification is Covered Code, and
	Section 3.2 says you have to distribute the change notice file
	with each copy of Covered Code).

3)	You have to make the Original Code *plus your change notice
	file* available for distribution (with the Executable, or via
	Electronic Distribution for 6-12 months).

					Craig Milo Rogers

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]