From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Dec 1 21: 0: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE3D37B401 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:00:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4CF43EC2 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:00:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0082.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.82] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18Iiga-0000w6-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 21:00:01 -0800 Message-ID: <3DEAE881.B3D8990D@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:58:42 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Darren Pilgrim Cc: Kyle Martin , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is a port skeleton considered a derivative work under the GPL? References: <3DE9A680.4000702@pantherdragon.org> <20021201004323.GD811@marvin.bsdng.org> <3DEADB90.3020206@pantherdragon.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Darren Pilgrim wrote: > Kyle Martin wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 10:04:48PM -0800, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > >>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 > > > > we do it all the time, look at any of the thousands of ported GPL applications > > That's lemming logic, though. I'd rather check first. The alternative is "lawyer logic". Lawyer logic is the logic of risk avoidance. When consulted, they will tell you to avoid all actions that do not have a written law or case law in the jurisdiction in which you intend to perform the action. In other words, they will tell you to pull the blanket over your head, so the things that might live under your bed can't get you. Having the laywers in charge is what killed Novell, and what's in the process of killing IBM. The real answer is that there is insufficient precedent to be able to answer your question with a 100% assurance one way or the other. On the plus side, people who GPL their code are generally socialists, and they rarely have enough money to enforce in the courts, as a result. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message