GPG.exe binary included

[J. Javier Maestro]

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
`. `'`   <jjmaestro at ieee.org>
  `-

P.S I only read v2, but I believe v3 is similar with respect to this issue.