[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Distributing GPL software

On 30 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0400, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
good questions.  Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
US, there are two or three different ways to analyze whether one work
is derived from another copyrighted work, and I imagine most other
countries have their own rules (at least slightly different from the
US's) to determine this.  In the case of a shell script, the point is
likely moot because the script is its own source code.
Yes, it is its own source code, but the shell script isn't under GPL,
so the user isn't allowed to redistribute it. However the shell script
does nothing but launch the program, and interpret its output, the
user can modify the shell script to his liking if he wishes so, he can
replace the programs invoked (there is no need to relink :D).
Is there some precedent on commercial programs having trouble with
shell scripts in their products?

The easiest way to satisfy the GPL is
to include the complete source code for the GPLed works that you
distribute on the CD, which I think is your second option.

Whichever option you choose, you must include a copy of the GPL on the
CD and identify the GPLed software.
Should an install program show the GPL to the user, does the user have
to accept the GPL license for included GPL software?
 Notifying the upstream maintainer is polite but not required by the GPL.
> P.S.:
> If I make changes to a GPL program, is it enough if I submit the
> changes upstream, or do I have to offer the patch (on the CD/on the
> web)?

Neither by itself satisfies the GPL.  The GPL requires that the
binary-code recipient (be able to) get the complete modified source
Ah yes, I meant provide the source code on CD, provide patch to upstream ;)


Reply to: