| MacUpdate Weekend Sale | :This weekend MacUpdate has slashed prices on Painter 12 and Painter Lite. Painter 12 retails for $429, but has been reduced by 54% to $199. Painter Lite has seen a 58% price cut from $69 to $29. Hurry, because these deals are only available until May 19th 2013. |
SierraMaps has begun selling a Gimp 1.2.1 for Mac OS X CD for $25 that installs the software without any user input. For more information on compiling and running the Gimp under OS X, see MacGimp.org.
Comments
nt
I don't think that this is a GPL violation. They are not modifying the source code to GIMP, nor are they making a "derivative work" from it. The binary that they compile is shippable without having to include the source code on the same CD, as long as they tell you HOW you can get the source code. They do have a link to www.gimp.org, and don't need to do anything further.
Packaging something is not making a "derivative work" from it, and thus you do not have to release the inner workings of your package/installer under the GPL.
The GPL requires that THEY provide you with the source codes, and further, to the extent any of their scripts a derivative works of scripts used to build the original GIMP, OR DISTRIBUTED WITH IT, they must provide this in source code format to anyone who makes a request.
Fact is, GIMP by itself as distributed doesn't run on MacOS X. If they made any changes in any fashion, they are obliged to share those with the world.
"For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. "
The GPL states:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Even if they do not ship the source on the CD, which would comply with term 1 of section 3 under Terms and Conditions, they can always say "Give me $1 and I'll ship you the source
on a separate CD". They still would not have to give you a single character of the source code of the INSTALLER that they wrote, because the INSTALLER is not a derivative work. The INSTALLER just puts files in certain places and sets up the desktop (making a blatant assumption here. I don't have one of their CDs, and I'm betting that you don't either. Yet.).
Look. Making a package of the binary is not a derivative work. If I tarred up a directory with the GIMP binaries and emailed it to you, I am NOT violating the GPL, as long as I tell you where to get the source code FOR THE GIMP. If I also wrote a closed-source binary that would untar the file and place symlinks in appropriate places for you to be able to run it, I also am not violating the GPL. I don't have to open the source of my installer; I'm not using the makefiles or scripts in the operation of my installer.
The "complete source code means all the source code...plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" phrase means that I can't modify the GIMP, throw in a library that I wrote, give you all of the source changes I made but withhold the Makefiles that would allow you to build my binary. That doesn't mean that I have to give you the source to my installer, if the installer does not modify any of the source from the GIMP, its makefiles or its included installer.
Think about it, people. Can I ship a closed-source version of tar with Slackware Linux 7.1, which uses .tar.gz files for packaging all of its GPL bina
The GPL states:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Even if they do not ship the source on the CD, which would comply with term 1 of section 3 under Terms and Conditions, they can always say "Give me $1 and I'll ship you the source
on a separate CD". They still would not have to give you a single character of the source code of the INSTALLER that they wrote, because the INSTALLER is not a derivative work. The INSTALLER just puts files in certain places and sets up the desktop (making a blatant assumption here. I don't have one of their CDs, and I'm betting that you don't either. Yet.).
Look. Making a package of the binary is not a derivative work. If I tarred up a directory with the GIMP binaries and emailed it to you, I am NOT violating the GPL, as long as I tell you where to get the source code FOR THE GIMP. If I also wrote a closed-source binary that would untar the file and place symlinks in appropriate places for you to be able to run it, I also am not violating the GPL. I don't have to open the source of my installer; I'm not using the makefiles or scripts in the operation of my installer.
The "complete source code means all the source code...plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" phrase means that I can't modify the GIMP, throw in a library that I wrote, give you all of the source changes I made but withhold the Makefiles that would allow you to build my binary. That doesn't mean that I have to give you the source to my installer, if the installer does not modify any of the source from the GIMP, its makefiles or its included installer.
Think about it, people. Can I ship a closed-source version of tar with Slackware Linux 7.1, which uses .tar.gz files for packaging all of its GPL bina
The GPL states:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Even if they do not ship the source on the CD, which would comply with term 1 of section 3 under Terms and Conditions, they can always say "Give me $1 and I'll ship you the source
on a separate CD". They still would not have to give you a single character of the source code of the INSTALLER that they wrote, because the INSTALLER is not a derivative work. The INSTALLER just puts files in certain places and sets up the desktop (making a blatant assumption here. I don't have one of their CDs, and I'm betting that you don't either. Yet.).
Look. Making a package of the binary is not a derivative work. If I tarred up a directory with the GIMP binaries and emailed it to you, I am NOT violating the GPL, as long as I tell you where to get the source code FOR THE GIMP. If I also wrote a closed-source binary that would untar the file and place symlinks in appropriate places for you to be able to run it, I also am not violating the GPL. I don't have to open the source of my installer; I'm not using the makefiles or scripts in the operation of my installer.
The "complete source code means all the source code...plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" phrase means that I can't modify the GIMP, throw in a library that I wrote, give you all of the source changes I made but withhold the Makefiles that would allow you to build my binary. That doesn't mean that I have to give you the source to my installer, if the installer does not modify any of the source from the GIMP, its makefiles or its included installer.
Think about it, people. Can I ship a closed-source version of tar with Slackware Linux 7.1, which uses .tar.gz files for packaging all of its GPL bina
The GPL states:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Even if they do not ship the source on the CD, which would comply with term 1 of section 3 under Terms and Conditions, they can always say "Give me $1 and I'll ship you the source
on a separate CD". They still would not have to give you a single character of the source code of the INSTALLER that they wrote, because the INSTALLER is not a derivative work. The INSTALLER just puts files in certain places and sets up the desktop (making a blatant assumption here. I don't have one of their CDs, and I'm betting that you don't either. Yet.).
Look. Making a package of the binary is not a derivative work. If I tarred up a directory with the GIMP binaries and emailed it to you, I am NOT violating the GPL, as long as I tell you where to get the source code FOR THE GIMP. If I also wrote a closed-source binary that would untar the file and place symlinks in appropriate places for you to be able to run it, I also am not violating the GPL. I don't have to open the source of my installer; I'm not using the makefiles or scripts in the operation of my installer.
The "complete source code means all the source code...plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" phrase means that I can't modify the GIMP, throw in a library that I wrote, give you all of the source changes I made but withhold the Makefiles that would allow you to build my binary. That doesn't mean that I have to give you the source to my installer, if the installer does not modify any of the source from the GIMP, its makefiles or its included installer.
Think about it, people. Can I ship a closed-source version of tar with Slackware Linux 7.1, which uses .tar.gz files for packaging all of its GPL bina
For some reason, Opera is reposting the form data when I was reloading the page! I didn't mean to repost 4 copies of my reply, obviously... I apologize.
Also, my post was apparently too long, and one of my points was cut out:
The language that states: "...complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." means that if I make a derivative work from a GPL'd executable, I can't just give you the source code and not give you the Makefiles, installer scripts/binaries, etc. This prevents people from abusing the GPL by giving you, say, modified Linux kernel source, but witholding the Makefiles you need to compile it. If I have some binary installer that puts GPLd executables in certain places and does other setup, but does not modify the GIMP itself, that installer is not "infected" by the GPL. I do have to tell you where to get the GIMPs source (which they do), but not the source of my installer.
A stronger statement which shows that you don't have to GPL the installer is:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
Meaning that the installer won't have to be GPL'd, because it is a separate work from the GIMP. You do have to show the person where to download the GIMP source code, but don't have to bundle it on the CD.
The GPL does not intend to take your source code from you. It states:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
But (as shown in the Preamble), it does protect the rights of the people that release their code under the GPL from people who would simply distribute that code for a fee, but try to strip that code of the GPL:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
I don't see SierraMaps doing that. All they do is give you an easy installtion of the GPL'd GIMP.
OR
Network Headlines
Most Popular
MacNN Sponsor
Recent Reviews
Brother HL-3170CDW LED Printer
We've mentioned before that we are far from a paperless society. For now, at least, there are tasks that require a piece of paper for ...
HTC One
It is hard to overstate just how critically important the HTC One is to the Taiwanese company’s fortunes. Despite its alarming decline ...
Samsung Galaxy S 4
Samsung's new flagship Android smartphone, the Galaxy S 4, faces even stiffer competition than its popular predecessor. With a five-in ...
Most Commented
Popular News
Joined:
GPL
I don't see a way to download the software. This here is what we call a GPL violation.