software licensing open-source-software definition
Are shell scripts considered binaries for licensing purposes?
<p>There are a number of licenses that contain the term &quot;binary distribution&quot;. For example, <a href="https://github.com/boostorg/beast/blob/develop/LICENSE_1_0.txt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://github.com/boostorg/beast/blob/develop/LICENSE_1_0.txt</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A simple permissive license only requiring preservation of copyright
and license notices for source (and not binary) distribution.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What does this term precisely mean? Specifically, can I use shell scripts (e.g., <a href="https://github.com/boostorg/beast/blob/develop/tools/build-and-test.sh" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://github.com/boostorg/beast/blob/develop/tools/build-and-test.sh</a>) without preservation of copyright notice? Do bash scripts count as both source and binary files? Or does &quot;binary&quot; mean only something produced by the equally vague term &quot;compiler&quot;?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Do bash scripts count as both source and binary files?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. Absent a definition of <em>binary file</em> or of <em>shell script</em> in the license, the commonplace meaning of the terms will apply. Under the commonplace meaning of <em>binary file</em> and of <em>shell script</em>, the latter counts as source, not as binaries.</p>
<p>In the license at issue, the language &quot;<em>machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor</em>&quot; reinforces the argument that shell scripts are not binaries. That is because all commands, keywords, and symbols/signs in a shell script are directly provided by a human and without the need for a processor to convert that code to something else.</p>
<p>Even if the script also contained binary code, as in the case of a shellcode (example, for a buffer overflow exploit), the presence of that shellcode does not change the fact that it is embedded in a script to which the previous paragraph applies.</p>

<p>What you've quoted is merely the summary.</p>
<p>The rest of the licence clarifies that the requirement to include copyright notices, the licence, and disclaimer applies:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>unless such copies or derivative
works are <strong>solely</strong> in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This does still needs application and interpretation in individual circumstances, as most legal attempts to categorize do, but it's more precise that the summary. I have tried to find any judicial interpretation of this license; I have not found any.</p>
<p>(Sorry, but I will avoid answering whether this applies to any particular kind of file or generation process.)</p>
