[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Savannah-hackers] submission of UniPackage -

From: Sylvain Beucler
Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers] submission of UniPackage -
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:09:11 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/


The file is still part of the files you will upload at Savannah and
needs appriopriate notices.

If a GPL program includes _a part of itself_ in its output, then the
output is bound to the GPL, hence the stated exception in the license

Since AppRun is very small you may want to use a simple all-permissive
license such as:

  Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
  are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
  notice and this notice are preserved.

If AppRun is improved and gets more features, I suggest you then use
the Bison skeleton-like license. In that case, I think it is
acceptable to strip off comments at run time before to include AppRun
in the output.


On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 01:57:44AM +1000, Ben Myles wrote:
> Hi Sylvain,
> Thanks for your suggestion below. I've been thinking about it, but in
> my opinion it doesn't really seem right to include the copyright
> notice in the "AppRun" script.
> The "AppRun" script is just part of the output of my application. It's
> not the application itself.
> If you think of the GIMP as a metaphor - the GIMP itself has its own
> respective license, but images generated with it can be licensed under
> whatever license the artist wishes.
> Primarily, I feel that if I include the license information at the top
> of every generated "AppRun" file, it will discourage software
> distributors from packaging non-GPL software with the system. This
> would cripple the tool's prospects.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is still in compliance with
> the GPL? If not then perhaps I need to switch to a less restrictive
> license such as BSD?
> Thanks,
> Ben
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 00:24:29 +0100, Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Giving a permissive does not mean you should drop the copyright and
> > license notices. I suggest you use something like the Bison skeleton
> > files:
> > 
> > /* Skeleton output parser for bison,
> > 
> >    Copyright (C) 1984, 1989, 1990, 2000, 2001, 2002 Free Software
> >    Foundation, Inc.
> > 
> >    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> >    the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
> >    any later version.
> > 
> >    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> >    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> >    GNU General Public License for more details.
> > 
> >    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> >    along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
> >    Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330,
> >    Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.  */
> > 
> > /* As a special exception, when this file is copied by Bison into a
> >    Bison output file, you may use that output file without restriction.
> >    This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation
> >    in version 1.24 of Bison.  */
> > 
> > Would this suit your needs?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]