On 30 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0400, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
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?
Notifying the upstream maintainer is polite but not required by the GPL.
Ok.>
> 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 code.
Ah yes, I meant provide the source code on CD, provide patch to upstream ;) Cheers, Edwin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
