Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 03:57:18PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 11/7/07, John Halton <johnhalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > I'd be interested to know which "lawyer statements" you are referring
> > to (genuine question - feel free to mail me the details off-list if
> > you've previously posted them here).
>
> Try
>
> http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
Thanks.
I must admit I only glanced through this, and can't pretend to give a
learned opinion on Prof. Determann's learned opinion.
But from what I understand of the technical aspects of the discussion
in this thread, this isn't a matter of whether the CDDL-licensed code
is being statically or dynamically linked, but of the following
wording from the GPL v.2:
"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*."
So the question is not whether the CDDL code has been incorporated
into a derived work and is therefore covered by the GPL on that basis.
My understanding is that build scripts would not fall within that
category anyway. The question is whether those build scripts
themselves can be distributed under the GPL (as required by the GPL),
and the answer (as I understand it) is no, because that would breach
the terms of the CDDL.
John
Reply to: