4 ms·

If you don’t modify any of the source for the applications in those containers, then you have no changes to release. IANAL, but my understanding is that the GPL

If you don’t modify any of the source for the applications in those containers, then you have no changes to release. IANAL, but my understanding is that the GPL applies to a body of source code and not other things running alongside that source code. The distinctions are nuanced (Galoob v. Nintendo, etc.) but generally if you’re violating the GPL, you can kinda feel it. Like, in Welte v. Sitecom, Sitecom didn’t just ship Welte’s work with their product (that would’ve been fine) they modified his work and failed to give source code access to their users (which is what the GPL demands).

palata 2y ago
> If you don’t modify any of the source for the applications in those containers, then you have no changes to release. Pretty sure this is wrong. GPL says that if you distribute the binary, you must distribute the sources with it [1]. Modified or not. And not a vague link to the upstream project: the actual sources that were used to build the actual binary you ship. Then pretty much all licences (permissive or copyleft) require some kind of attribution. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinar...
- LegionMammal978 2y ago
  Either the source itself, or a written offer to provide the source. But you're right that 'vaguely gesturing' at it doesn't seem to be permitted. Not to mention the license terms not being prominent in the binary (with hardly anyone outside of GNU actually putting a license command into their programs). This kind of stuff is why I'm not in the business of distributing free software.