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

Re: Distributing GPL software

Török Edvin writes:

> 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?

I do not know of any.

> > 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.
> Yes.
> >
> > 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?

Your installer does not have to show the GPL to the user or ask the
user to accept the GPL's terms.  The user only needs to accept the
GPL's terms in order to copy or modify the GPLed works; in practice,
the GPL's limits on what the user does are just on redistribution of
the GPLed works.

Michael Poole

Reply to: