[linux-elitists] GPL and binary distribution

Jay Sulzberger jays@panix.com
Mon Apr 16 14:47:46 PDT 2001


On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Greg KH wrote:

> In discussions today with a manager at place I work (no names here, but
> it's probably obvious...) the argument was raised (yet again) that once
> we compile a GPL program, we can limit the distribution of that binary
> version (and since we use a different version of the gcc compiler from
> everyone else, our binaries are unique from everyone else's.)
>
> Originally their argument was claiming that we could assert copyright on
> that binary version, but Steve Beattie (also on this list) made the very
> good point that a binary is a derived work, and hence you can't
> arbitrary claim copyright of it.
>
> So what I'm looking for is anything that either refutes the argument
> that we can limit the distribution of a binary version of a GPL program,
> or that supports it (I really am not looking for arguments to back up
> his point, but in fairness, and the fact that I'm afraid he's correct,
> I'll accept it :)
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

GPL is a license for a copyrighted work.

If there are any doubts about what the license means then consult

1.  lawyers for the company which has doubts

2.  the copyright holder

3.  me.

oo--JS.




More information about the linux-elitists mailing list