Re: [Linux-aus] Meaning of object code/binary format/executable format in GPL/BSD style licenses

[Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>]

Hi Benno,

whether or not this answers your question, my understanding of the GNU GPL 
is that the "source" which must be made available is in the format most
commonly edited by humans.

ie. if you write a parser using lex+yacc, then you must distribute the
grammar specification, not just the generated C code. If you distribute
an MP3 of a MOD music file, you should distribute the MOD itself.

I don't think the licensing of your control-flow graph algorithm would be
influenced by the license on the input source that is being rendered, if
that's what you're asking. IANAL.

cheers,

Conrad.

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 01:42:01PM +1000, Benno wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Might not be the right list, but I was wondering if anyone here had any idea
> on what exactly object code/binary format/executable format meant.
> 
> In particular, if I have some algorithm that converts a source file
> into a binary representation of, for example, a control-flow graph,
> can I distribute that binary representation, and if I do what license
> obligations would I have?
> 
> Would it be a object code/binary format/executable format? Would it be
> a derived source file, or would it be a third thing which I have no right
> to distribute at all.