Re: GPL and nib files

[Adam Fedor]

On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Jesse Hammons wrote:
> My question: does a GNUStep or Cocoa .nib file qualify as an "interface
> definition file?"  I am confused in the sentence whether the "interface
> definition file" refers to interfaces for object code (i.e. header
> files) or whether it refers to Graphical User Interface definition
> files, such as Windows rc files, Mac rez files, (icons, etc), or
> cocoa/gnustep nibs.
I don't know. From the intention it appears like it might be source.

> On a related note, are nib files considered code or data?  I am making
> an application that runs on GNUStep and Cocoa.  The code for this
> application is GPL (because I am using someone else GPL code for part
> of the functionality).  I would like to restrict distribution of the
> nib files (which were created by myself only).  I am wondering if this
> would  violate the requirement for distributing "complete source code."
I would consider it data, but I think that's irrelevant. What you 
probably want to pay attention to is section 2, which describes what 
constitutes a 'work' (i.e. everything you distribute with the program). 
 In that case you would be violating the GPL. I think the only way to 
avoid that is to distribute the nib files separately.

> What about images, sounds, icons and similar types of materials?  If I
> combine GPL code with proprietary data, and ship resulting binary, is
> that a violation of the GPL?  If I provide access to the source code
> for a version of the application that is completely equal in
> functionality (same code) but uses generic images does that qualify as
> being the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it?"
I think so (see above).