Timeline for Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2021 at 9:52 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Broke The Law | [L]GPLv2[.1] doesn't seem to require you to distribute everything that is needed, if it doesn't fall into one of those categories. I've asked a new question here | |
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 13:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://opensource.stackexchange.com/ with https://opensource.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 3, 2016 at 12:32 | vote | accept | leftaroundabout | ||
| Mar 30, 2016 at 22:54 | comment | added | congusbongus | @sleske I'm convinced; I've edited that information in. BTW you could have suggested another edit; I would have accepted. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 22:52 | history | edited | congusbongus | CC BY-SA 3.0 | GPLv2 applies too |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 21:41 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @congusbongus by the way, I meant to thank you for your bonus on this answer of mine - but more so for the kind words that accompanied the original bonus declaration. They are much appreciated. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 11:06 | comment | added | sleske | @congusbongus: "Tivoization", however, is a bit different IMHO. It usually does not refer to making compilation/building difficult, but to restricting the installation of software on custom hardware (e.g. a TiVo). The terms aimed at avoiding this (particularly the concepts of "user product" and "installation instructions") are indeed new in GPL v3, but that's not what the question is about. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 11:02 | comment | added | sleske | @congusbongus: The GPL v2 has similar language to v3: "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. " So including things like Makefiles is definitely required for binary distribution under GPL v2, too. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 10:16 | comment | added | congusbongus | @sleske I disagree that GPLv2 also handles this scenario - after all, how can Tivoization be possible? The problem with GPLv2 is that it does not define what "corresponding source code" means; in GPLv3 they define it as files necessary to recreate the object code. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 10:11 | comment | added | sleske | @apsillers: Good point about binary distribution. I took the liberty of editing this into the answer. | |
| S Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03 | history | suggested | sleske | CC BY-SA 3.0 | note: only relevant for binary distribution |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 9:57 | comment | added | sleske | @congusbongus: Good answer. However, I think this is against the GPL v2 as well, as it contains similar language to the GPL v3 (see term 3, which mentions the "the complete corresponding machine-readable source code"). Do you mind if I submit an edit? | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 9:56 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2016 at 22:57 | comment | added | congusbongus | @apsillers that's an interesting point, that if a binary isn't distributed then you don't have to provide buildable source. Maybe it's a point worth addressing in a separate question. | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 22:48 | history | edited | congusbongus | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 9 characters in body |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 17:51 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | @supercat This sounds like an excellent totally separate question. If you want to post it as a question, please do. (If you're not interested in doing so, I'd like to.) -- To give a quick answer, it sounds like distributing the signature as a totally separate component might possibly allow the main work to skate by the "specifically for use in" criterion, but I think you'd better suit up for a fun legal battle. | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 17:04 | comment | added | supercat | @apsillers: Under the scenario I envisioned, there would be two things distributed: (1) an executable which could work without modification on either machine, and (2) a signature file which would enable the cheap machine to run the former executable, and might be distributed either with it or separately (e.g. in a file containing the signatures of all authorized applications). | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 17:03 | comment | added | wim | This is a very confusing answer. It's written no in bold, then goes on to describe why the answer is yes. | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 16:16 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | It's worth noting for clarity that you must provide build scripts (etc.) to produce a binary form identical to whatever binary you distribute. If you don't distribute a binary, then you don't have any obligation to provide buildable source code whatsoever. I'm sure this is obvious to you, but may be a helpful clarifying point to others. Specifically, you could change, "if someone distributes source code but does not provide compilation instructions..." to "So if someone distributes source code alongside a binary but does not provide compilation instructions to recreate that binary..." | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 16:05 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | @supercat If I receive a copy of GPL-covered binary and source that is signed for use in the $50 machine, I think it's safe to say that that binary was distributed "specifically for use in" (GPLv3 Sec.6) the $50 machine, and I am entitled to "Installation Instructions" to modify and resign the code to run in the $50 machine. If the code I receive is unsigned and will not work as-is in the $50 machine, then the distributor can fairly say that the code was "intended for use" only in the $15k machine, because, indeed, it won't work in the $50 machine unsigned. | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 15:53 | comment | added | supercat | Suppose a company produces a program which will work on some particular hardware platform they sell for $15,000. They also sell for $50 a machine which can run executables for the former platform, but only if they are accompanied by a digital signature. Would it be legal for that company to distribute GPL software plus a signature which would allow it to run on the cheap machine, if the signature itself didn't contain any copyrighted material, and if the unsigned code could run on a machine (just not a cheap one)? | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 15:29 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | I think you mean "yes" at the top, don't you? It seems to me that you give a pretty good argument as to why the conveyor must provide source code in a form that will compile to the conveyed executable - in which case the answer to the original question is yes, you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled. I don't want to add any more until I'm sure you mean what you say! | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 14:07 | history | edited | congusbongus | CC BY-SA 3.0 | add GPLv2 note |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 14:02 | history | answered | congusbongus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |