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".
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."""