2 Aug
2009
2 Aug
'09
8:35 p.m.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 17:59:24 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
keller wrote:
Not the case. Depends on circumstances.
On Aug 2, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier
wrote:
i'm pretty sure you can use anything you want (or nothing at all). keller wrote:
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. 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.
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