why should it be closed source? you're gonna seriously put the effort to remove all the traces of source files? why not just keep the source so people can learn about the software that they are using?! students are supposed to learn, no?
On 1/28/22, ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > On Friday, 28 January 2022, at 4:23 AM, Kurt H Maier wrote: >> None of these prohibit redistribution. Feel free to delete them from > your copy. > > I'm intending to distribute a closed source binary release as a kiosk > application which will be used as a graphical terminal for students. So > anything containing GPL code can't be part of the base installment. Users > can decide to download and install binaries on their computer but the moment > I distribute a GPL application as an integral part of my system where some > of the binaries depend on their existence without alternatives my code and > binaries get infected by GPL. > > I already deleted ghostscript and all fonts from 9front to avoid legal > problems. Xen, mp3dec, lzip weren't used by my app the only surprises were > diff and patch which I can substitute by not GPL'ed versions. > > You are right if I would distribute my kiosk software in binary and source > form like all plan9 distributions do. Then I would have fulfilled the > necessities of GPL regarding redistribution. But the problem of "work based > upon", "word depends on" would perhaps remain for some of the tools used by > plan9. In common you are right but not when someone makes a binary > distribution ... > > Thanks ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T3e07bfdf263a83c8-Me0f75371623232060900de30 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
