On 11-Jun-99, 14:03 (CDT), Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still a little curious about it though. I assume that writing > a shell script that calls GPL'ed code is OK, right? Even if that > shell script is not made public? I can see no difference between a > GUI shell and a shell script in this specific regard.
Note that the GPL requirement to distribute source only applies if you distribute the binary. So you can do whatever you want personally. I *think* many people agree that distribution inside a company is considered private use; so if you write a GUI for dpkg (for example), and only give it to people in the company, you are not required to distribute the source for that GUI outside the company. Perhaps a better way to say it is that you are only required to distribute source to the same people to whom you are distributing binaries. > If I may redirect it a bit, is it up to the author of the tool in > question? I'm specifically curious about dpkg, if I have written > concent from the authors in question to build a GUI shell is that OK > regardless of the vagrity of the license in this regard? Only the author can enforce copyright. The GPL is a license that gives you rights to do things with the program and source code above and beyond normal copyright allowance. The author is saying "if you want to do X, I allow it, so long as you also do Y". Therefore, if you the author says "You can do Z", then you basically have an additional license beyond the normal license. Your "written consent" functions as an additional license that the author has chosen to grant. (John H. or somebody jump in if I've mistated this or implied something incorrect.) > And who > _are_ the authors in the case of GPL'ed code? The GPL doesn't change authorship (or copyright holder). You should be able to find the author listed in the source code. In the case of dpkg, it's Ian Jackson and several others. Steve Greenland
