Erast Benson <erast@gnusolaris.org> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
>> > Joerg clearly stands that:
>> >
>> > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
>> > be called "scripts":
>> >
>> > """ GPL §3 requires the "scripts for compilation" to be provided but
>> > as a first note, it is unclear whether Makefiles may be called
>> > "scripts".
>>
>> This is an absurd interpretation. `The scripts used to control
>> compilation and installation of the executable' would be an empty set
>> for much GNU software if it didn't include the Makefiles. It is
>> obvious that that phrase was included in the GPL specifically to
>> ensure that the build system is covered.
>>
>> If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
>> (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
>
> I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it
> is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation".
This is a minority viewpoint, IMO. We could argue for months about
what a "script" is, but that wouldn't help much. Makefiles are often
referred to as "build scripts", and I don't think many folks would
argue that they are *not* scripts.
Look at the complete definition:
,----
| The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
| making modifications to it. 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.
`----
> Makefiles are programs written in non-scripting language. To understand
> what non-scripting language is, I googled this:
>
> """I'd define a scripting language as one which requires you to put $
> or whatever in front of variable names, and makes quoting strings an
> optional construct, and does string variable substitution inside string
> constants unless you force it not to with odd escape characters.
> A non-scripting language is one which has simple, clear-cut lexical
> conventions and parsing syntax."""
You are going into nitpicking arguments about semantics and
definitions at this point, which is not particularly useful: you are
wasting everyone's time, including your own.
The intent of the GPL requirement is clear: the build system in a
distributed source tree licensed under the GPL must be GPL (or
compatible with the GPL). That is, the mechanism used to build GPL
code is an intrinsic part of a GPL licensed work, and so cannot be
licensed in an incompatible manner.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please sign and encrypt your mail.
Attachment:
pgpot54r_Thzj.pgp
Description: PGP signature