Re: The legality of cdrecord
Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> The GPL requires to publish "all" from "the work" to be published under the
> GPL but not more.
>
> - The build scripts in many cases are not part of "the work".
> This is true for all software that e.g. uses autoconf.
> This is true for all software that usees other independent
> build software.
> This is true in the cdrtools case.
>
> Your misunderstanding is that you did not grok the fact that the GPL
> distinguishes between "the work" and "the whole source".
>
> - "the work" needs to be under GPL
>
> - The GPL does not require _anyting_ for the other parts that are
> needed to create "the whole source" except that it needs to be
> published.
I believe the above interpretation is mistaken. See the recent
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html>. It
says, regarding both GPL version 2 and version 3:
Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source
necessary to build the software, including supporting libraries,
compilation scripts, and so on.
If you want to convince anyone that your interpretation is correct, and
apparently that the FSF is incorrect, I believe you need to make a
better case. How about writing up a web page that discuss your entire
position with quotes from the relevant licenses? Then it would be
easier to understand things and discuss this further.
/Simon
Reply to: