Christian Ohm wrote:
> On Sunday, 2 August 2009 at 21:36, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
>> can we please bury this urban myth that anybody who releases software
>> under the gpl is legally bound to include makefiles and such?
>
> "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
> modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all
> the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
> definition files, PLUS THE SCRIPTS USED TO CONTROL COMPILATION AND INSTALLATION
> OF THE EXECUTABLE."
sigh. this is the license for you, the person who is redistributing the
software. you must not remove any of those build and install scripts
that you received when redistributing the software.
it is not binding to the original author for his/her original work. what
bob can't do is include third-party software licensed under the gpl
*without* including its build and install scripts.
how he compiles his own code is technically nobody's business.
i could write gpl'd original code and sell you a proprietary makefile
for $100,000.00 that you can't legally redistribute. if i feel like it.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Aug 3 00:15:07 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 03 2009 - 00:15:08 EEST