Does GPLv2 Include an ‘Installation Information’ Obligation? A Textual & Historical Analysis

One of the features included in version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3) was a requirement, in certain circumstances, to provide ‘Installation Information.’ This was a new addition to the licence to address a ‘loophole’ that existed in version 2 of the licence (GPLv2); a loophole that was perceived as being exploited, at the time, by certain device vendors. Recently, it has been asserted that this requirement was inherent, or explicitly called for, in GPLv2. This paper examines the historical record around the time that the ‘Installation Information’ requirement was proposed, and eventually ratified, in GPLv3, to show that this requirement was understood to be both new, and not a part of GPLv2. A textual analysis of GPLv2 yields an identical result.

Does GPLv2 Include an ‘Installation Information’ Obligation? A Textual & Historical Analysis

One of the features included in version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3) was a requirement, in certain circumstances, to provide ‘Installation Information.’ This was a new addition to the licence to address a ‘loophole’ that existed in version 2 of the licence (GPLv2); a loophole that was perceived as being exploited, at the time, by certain device vendors. Recently, it has been asserted that this requirement was inherent, or explicitly called for, in GPLv2. This paper examines the historical record around the time that the ‘Installation Information’ requirement was proposed, and eventually ratified, in GPLv3, to show that this requirement was understood to be both new, and not a part of GPLv2. A textual analysis of GPLv2 yields an identical result.

Distribution of Dockerfiles: Who is responsible for FOSS Licence Compliance?

The deployment of Docker is becoming increasingly popular as container technology allows for a unified software distribution that is largely independent of the target system. This raises new questions of FOSS license compliance. The reason is that in addition to the complete software distribution as a “Docker image”, so-called Dockerfiles can be used, which - similar to a script - contain a kind of construction manual for the software which may include downloads from third party repositories. Such form of decentralized distribution raises the question of responsibility for compliance with the license conditions. This article sheds light on the concept of “distribution” under European copyright law as a starting point for the interpretation of free licenses. In the course of the study, it is shown that physical distribution and distribution in the meaning of copyright law do not always have to be congruent. This article was created in collaboration with and funded by the Open Source Automation Development Lab (OSADL) eG (www.osadl.org).

Open Source Interpretation

This Article offers an alternative to the standard assumptions concerning the interpretation of Free and Open Source Software licenses – that such licenses should be interpreted as boilerplate agreements applied by the licensing parties without having negotiation regarding the language of the license. The Article considers some of the consequences of this approach to license interpretation.