Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 00:43:23 +0000 From: Kyle Martin <mkm@ieee.org> To: Darren Pilgrim <dmp@pantherdragon.org> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is a port skeleton considered a derivative work under the GPL? Message-ID: <20021201004323.GD811@marvin.bsdng.org> In-Reply-To: <3DE9A680.4000702@pantherdragon.org> References: <3DE9A680.4000702@pantherdragon.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 10:04:48PM -0800, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:04:48 -0800 > From: Darren Pilgrim <dmp@pantherdragon.org> > To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Is a port skeleton considered a derivative work under the GPL? > > I'm planning on making a port skeleton for a GPL'd program. I can't, > though, figure out if I have to GPL the port skeleton or not. If the of course not > skeleton is just the basic wrapper Makefile and uses the entire contents > of the original tarball verbatim, the skeleton is the equivalent of an > external start-up script and thus outside the scope of the original > license, right? What if I need to include patches or replace the > original Makefiles to get a clean build and install? Do those patches > and replacements have to be GPL'd? I've read the GPL, and all I gained nope we do it all the time, look at any of the thousands of ported GPL applications -- Kyle Martin <mkm@ieee.org>, http://www.bsdng.org -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d s:- a-- C+++ UB++++ P--- L- E--- W++ N+ o-- K- w--- O- M+ V-- PS+++ PE-- Y-- PGP++ t--- 5-- X+++ R+ tv b+++ DI+ D G- e* h++ r% y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021201004323.GD811>