Comment Obfuscated source is not source (Score 1) 771
It seems to me that the process of obfuscating the source code (as described by the original poster) and releasing only that violates the language in the GPL that defines "source code" as "the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it" (section 3). What this company is offering is not the "source code", and distributing a work derived from GPL code without making the source code (as defined by the GPL) available. As I read the GPL, the distribution of an executable which contains GPL code not owned by the distributor along with an offer to make available obfuscated source violates the GPL.
making modifications to it" (section 3). What this company is offering is not the "source code", and distributing a work derived from GPL code without making the source code (as defined by the GPL) available. As I read the GPL, the distribution of an executable which contains GPL code not owned by the distributor along with an offer to make available obfuscated source violates the GPL.
