From gdeciantis at gmail.com Thu May 1 22:05:29 2008 From: gdeciantis at gmail.com (Giampiero De Ciantis) Date: Thu May 1 23:08:34 2008 Subject: GPG.exe binary included Message-ID: <51B78326-27AB-4E70-BBDD-C729D6BF3CEF@gmail.com> I have an inquiry about including a pre-built GPL binary within an application. The application contains a plugin that encrypts files using GPG.exe. The code in the plugin is not linked in any way other than to call GPG.exe command line with arguments to encrypt or decrypt a file. A notice in the application contains a GPL license attribution that states that source code is available for GPG.exe by request. Does the mere fact that the GPG.exe is included with the entire bundle automatically make the entire product fall under the GPL? From hub at figuiere.net Thu May 1 23:31:39 2008 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Fri May 2 00:36:26 2008 Subject: GPG.exe binary included In-Reply-To: <51B78326-27AB-4E70-BBDD-C729D6BF3CEF@gmail.com> References: <51B78326-27AB-4E70-BBDD-C729D6BF3CEF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1209677500.31719.122.camel@quagmire> On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 16:05 -0400, Giampiero De Ciantis wrote: > I have an inquiry about including a pre-built GPL binary within an > application. The application contains a plugin that encrypts files > using GPG.exe. The code in the plugin is not linked in any way other > than to call GPG.exe command line with arguments to encrypt or > decrypt > a file. A notice in the application contains a GPL license > attribution > that states that source code is available for GPG.exe by request. > Does > the mere fact that the GPG.exe is included with the entire bundle > automatically make the entire product fall under the GPL? No. this is actually a FAQ. Hub From jjmaestro at ieee.org Fri May 2 00:50:39 2008 From: jjmaestro at ieee.org (J. Javier Maestro) Date: Fri May 2 02:54:14 2008 Subject: GPG.exe binary included In-Reply-To: <51B78326-27AB-4E70-BBDD-C729D6BF3CEF@gmail.com> References: <51B78326-27AB-4E70-BBDD-C729D6BF3CEF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080501225039.GA28424@2jotas.com> On May Thu 01 2008 16:05, Giampiero De Ciantis wrote: > I have an inquiry about including a pre-built GPL binary within an > application. The application contains a plugin that encrypts files using > GPG.exe. The code in the plugin is not linked in any way other than to call > GPG.exe command line with arguments to encrypt or decrypt a file. A notice > in the application contains a GPL license attribution that states that > source code is available for GPG.exe by request. Does the mere fact that > the GPG.exe is included with the entire bundle automatically make the > entire product fall under the GPL? First of all, IANAL :) But IMHO, if you read the GPL this is clearly out of its scope. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt The derivative work stuff is covered in Section 2, 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.) These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. As you can see, the second-to-last paragraph explains that the GPL only concerns the **really** derived work, and the very last paragraph **explicitly** excludes "bundling" as a way of implying "derivative" status. Since they comply with the *copyright* law by making a clear statement with respect to the binary GPG.exe regarding its license and their work is, per the GPL, definitely *not* a derived work of the GPG.exe source code, the mere use and bundling of the binary does not constitute a violation of the GPL. But again, IANAL :) My 2 cents :) -- .''`. : :' : J. Javier Maestro `. `'` `- P.S I only read v2, but I believe v3 is similar with respect to this issue.