Re: Comment on Emacs Lisp Introduction

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Harald Hanche-Olsen writes:
 > + David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
 > 
 > > Distributing Emacs without corresponding source to the byte code is a
 > > violation of its license.
 > 
 > Is it? I thought you only had to offer access to the source code.

Normally you have to offer access to source in the same way as you
offer access to binaries.  You don't need to bundle them in the same
medium, but normally they're available more or less side by side.

Under certain circumstances the object code may be conveyed separately
from the source, but the conditions are pretty onerous (it must be a
physical product, and it must be accompanied with a paper certificate
promising that *anybody* with a copy of the object code can get it
from you); it's unlikely that the OP received his code that way.

I'm less than impressed with the OP's complaints, of course.