On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 12:46:51PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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
Er, wait. This is complete nonsense: the very definition of a
makefile is "compilation script".
> Makefiles are programs written in a non-scripting language:
> I call this language "make". It is a non-algorithmic language but
> a rule based language (like e.g. CDL2)."""
The word "script" in computing came from theater, previously meaning
"screenplay", listing the things actors have to do, in a particular
Makefile does exactly that, lists what compiler/linker/etc have to
do, in a given order.
Thus, a makefile is certainly more a script than for example a Perl
module, and if it's not a "compilation script", then I don't know
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.