Timo Salmi said:
Me? If you find that a major concern, your question should best be posed
to the originator of the package.
I won't go through all the EXE files in your UnxUpdates.zip file. I'll
focus on gawk.exe. That's a dated version of GNU awk. It's definitely
GNU software.
You may not have created the zip file, but you ARE redistributing it.
If the originator of the package wasn't complying with the
redistribution terms of the GPL, neither are you. There's no
information whatsoever in the zip file identifying who the originator
may be. Regardless, your redistribution of the zip file doesn't comply
with the GPL. You aren't the copyright holder, so you don't get to
decide to ignore the licensing terms.
GNU Awk 3.1.3
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991-2003 Free Software Foundation.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
<remainder of screen display snipped>
Under the GPL version 2's Terms and Conditions section 3,
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.)
The zip file in question fails on all 3 conditions: source code files
don't accompany the EXE files; there's no written offer (you could
probably satisfy the second condition by including a README file); and
if you're redistributing this zip file without modification, then you
didn't receive any information as to the offer to distribute
corresponding source code. The last condition means that while you may
RECEIVE noncomplying binary distributions, you can't (in the legal/
moral sense) turn around and REDISTRIBUTE them yourself.
So it seems the person or site from which you received this file
wasn't complying with the terms of the GPL for this GPL'ed software.
By redistributing it as-is, you are also failing to comply with the
software's license terms and conditions. Consider at least adding a
README file pointing people to the source code.