John Halton wrote: > However, presumably for many programs licensed under GPL v.3 there > will be a number of associated non-executable files (e.g. under /etc) > for which read permissions need to remain in place. If you have a > GPLed package, I'm not sure what the implications are of "conveying" > the non-executable files while merely "propagating" (without > conveying) the binaries.
My first question would be whether those files would contain sufficient creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. If they don't (and I am not sure something like /etc/make.conf is 'creative'), then GPLv3 cannot apply to those files. The next question would be how you determine from a file in /etc what the "Program" is as GPLv3 defines it. You could argue that /etc/make.conf is a separate work (if creative) that is part of a collective work called 'make'. Since I'm entitled to remove parts from a GPLv3 work and convey only the remaining parts, I don't see anything unlawful about offering execute-only access to a binary and read access to the manpage and/or configuration files. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
