Build Scripts and GPL

[Peter Roozemaal]

Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:46:05PM +0200, Peter Roozemaal wrote:
>>Does Xyz provide source packages for the software on the live-CD?
> 
> Not on the CD and not on their website. 

Hmmm...

> [...] I'd like to find out if companies are allowed to do what they
> do, and if it is a GPL violation or not. In the end I have no problem
> with companies using our code for doing customer projects; that's why
> we have released it under the GPL. But it would really be interesting
> to learn if build script are part of the license or not; in the end
> we could have released them under a public domain license if not.

Can companies ignore the law? (Retorical question!)

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

> [...] But I think it is not a good idea to not enforce the GPL if it
> can be done in a sane way.

In this case anyone with a copyright on software distributed on the live
CD has legal right to complain. (The GPL requirement to make sourcecode
available.) Unfortunately that doesn't include you, unless you have more
copyrights than PTXdist.

Your drawing in another email:
>
>                  scripts
> programs      ------------->   compiled programs
> (source)                       (distributed work)
> 
> So the (GPLed) scripts are being used inouse at company Xyz, but
> nevertheless they are "scripts to compile/install source" according to
> the GPL. 

So, (relevant/used parts of) PTXdist have to be provided with the
sources for a binary distribution of GPL licensed works. You can only
ask for PTXdist, but have no right to demand it here, as PTXdist is only
used "in house".

Greetings,

Peter.