On Sunday 02 August 2009 17:59:24 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > keller wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > >> keller wrote: > >>> All it does is wrap the .jar file and other dirs to make it convenient > >>> for the users to install and launch. So I guess you're saying it's not > >>> allowed? > >> > >> as stated in another mail, this is hogwash. you are perfectly entitled > >> to chose whatever build tool you want, without having to redistribute > >> it. just be careful that all the third-party software you include has > >> the original build files included. > > > > As I am hearing now then, I can use install4j as long as I provide the > > install4j script (but not install4j itself) in the source repository. > > i'm pretty sure you can use anything you want (or nothing at all).
Not the case. Depends on circumstances. > > reasoning: > > 1. you are distributing third-party gpl code. make sure that it's > installable on its own, don't remove its build and install scripts. > > 2. you are distributing your own software, as-is, with a license of your > choice. nobody can force you to add installation or build scripts. what > if you aren't using any and compiling and linking by hand? Under the GPL they can, if you distribute binary packages that are made with scripts. Else don't distribute those particular binaries. > i'm not a lawyer (and also not interested in arguing the case). further > discussions and inquiries are probably best directed at the FSF. Thus you don't really understand the meaning of the license then. > my point was that it's totally misguided to accuse somebody who is > opening their original software under the gpl of non-compliance on the > grounds of not also providing build and install scripts for this > original software. Then your point is incorrect, you just do not understand the license properly. If your point was right then no one who uses the GPL and distributes would have to provide the source code either. Both of theses requirements are in the same section of the GPL and apply equally to the originator as much as any other party using the license. Everybody knows and agrees that the source code must be provided, in kind any scripts used to create distributable packages must also be included. The relevant section is A.2 Terms and conditions for copying, distribution, and modification. You will not find anything in that section that singles out only those who modify and afterwards distribute/copy. The terms "copying, distribution, and modification" can be consider almost mutually exclusive. The terms there apply equally to all who distribute/copy, as well as modify. Pay attention to section 3 specifically. It starts "you may copy and distribute", that is the general "you". It does not say only those who receive from the original authors or modify the original, or something to that effect. And this is why it is expected that even the original authors must supply the source code. Everything after that, including scripts, comes under the same conditions. Raymond _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
