Erast Benson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 01:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 1) The GPL requires that all scripts used to control compilation and
>> installation of the executable be released under terms compatible with
>> the GPL.
> Joerg clearly stands that:
> 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> be called "scripts":
At that point we start getting into semantic arguments that are
basically uninteresting to anyone other than a judge (and possibly not
even then). As copyright holder, if this is Joerg's opinion, he can add
an exception to the license that avoids the problem entirely.
> This means in other words: If I take other people's GPL code and create
> a "derived work" from that code, I need to make the whole work available
> under GPL. I do not need to make non-GPL code available at all, if GPL
> code is derived on that code. I do not need to make the build system
> available under GPL (GPL §3 requires me to make it available but does
> not mention a license) and the build system is not code that is
> "derived" from the GPLd project."""
It's an interesting arugment But, again, this is semantic bickering and
entirely unnecessary - if Joerg is copyright holder, he can ensure that
the license reflects his opinion.
> The key point is: GPL is pure source license. It does not explicitly
> require you to use a specific license for the binary in case you make
> the source available.
Can I suggest you read section 2(b)?
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com