Build Scripts and GPL

[Peter Roozemaal]

Robert Schwebel wrote:

> we are maintaining a GPL licensed build system for embedded systems,
> PTXdist (http://www.pengutronix.de/software/ptxdist_en.html). There is
> currently a case where a company (let's call them xyz) who has built
> it's business upon our tool, releases demo versions of "their" Embedded
> Linux variant on their homepage.
> 
> - The "product" is a life CD which can be downloaded from their web
>   site, being an example for their customized embedded Linux board
>   support packages. The CD image does contain a License file, stating:
> 
>   (C)2003-2004 Xyz Inc.
>   www.xyz.com
>   Somewhere
> 
>   followed by the GPL text. No written offer to supply the sources is
>   included. 
> 
> - They argument that, as the CD consists of compiled upstream packets
>   only, there is no reason why they should either reference PTXdist in
>   their copyright sections, nor that they have to give me their modified
>   version of PTXdist. They also argument that I could buy their $299
>   minimal packet and that would include all the modified PTXdist sources.

Does Xyz provide source packages for the software on the live-CD?

> IMHO this is simply plain wrong. The "work" consists of the upstream GPL
> packets, plus the (highly sophisticated, and so copyrightable) PTXdist
> build scripts. Speaking in GPL terms, PTXdist is "scripts used to
> control compilation" and "scripts used to control installation", so my
> impression is that the GPL should force him to give me the sources when
> he gave me the binaries. 
> 
> So my questions are: 
> 
> - Does anybody know a similar case, where the GPL licensed parts are no
>   direct base-code for the binary product but something like
>   buildscripts?
> 
> - Is my understanding correct that he has to add a written offer, no
>   matter about the PTXdist problem?
> 
> - Is it allowed to remove the PTXdist copyright notice and not to
>   mention PTXdist at all, although his live cd was entirely built with
>   PTXdist?
> 
> - What are reasonable copying expenses? $299 seems to be a little bit
>   high. 

When you get a lawyer involved, you're very likely to end up with a bill
that's much larger than $299. If you buy a (single) CD, that will
provide you with the essential proof that Xyz distributes a PTXdist
derivative work, you are able to examine Xyz's modifications and
consider them for inclusion into PTX. (You might need a lawyer to
examine whether the Xyz license is GPL compatible.)

A direct attack on the live CD distribution is doomed to fail if you
don't own copyrights on any of the distributed code.

Greetings,
	Peter.

P.S. Don't forget that fighting a lawsuit is time-consuming...