"I have to imagine that the scripts controlling installation must sign the executable. " This is a pretty big assumption, and in fact, is not actually true in

"I have to imagine that the scripts controlling installation must sign the executable. " This is a pretty big assumption, and in fact, is not actually true in a lot of cases :) Let's assume it is here. "Why isn't that data file also part of "the scripts used to control installation of the executable"?" Because the data file literally isn't a script used to control installation of the executable? It's a data file. At best, btw, you'll be able to argue that it would have to include the signing key, but not any password for it. So you are still pretty screwed :) Your argument also swallows the definition. Where does it end? Do i have to include the interpreter for the script, and provide source? Why not, since it's required for the script to function. (Note, this would not be covered by the next exception in a lot of cases) If i give you a bash script The installation script also almost certainly refers to the executable, but that's called out explicitly as something i have to give you source to. Why bother if it's included in the "scripts to control compilation/installation" part? (In general, courts are going to read definitions into things that make parts of enumerated lists differentiable from each other ) In general, i would say you can go down this path, but you won't get a court to come with you. Scripts means scripts. Data files means data files. If the key is literally part of the script, yes, you'd have to ship that. Not the password, mind you. If they wanted something else, they should have written something else. Which they did, in gplv3 ;)