Erast Benson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > 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". This is a minority viewpoint, IMO. We could argue for months about what a "script" is, but that wouldn't help much. Makefiles are often referred to as "build scripts", and I don't think many folks would argue that they are *not* scripts. Look at the complete definition: ,---- | The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for | making modifications to it. 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. `---- > 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.""" You are going into nitpicking arguments about semantics and definitions at this point, which is not particularly useful: you are wasting everyone's time, including your own. The intent of the GPL requirement is clear: the build system in a distributed source tree licensed under the GPL must be GPL (or compatible with the GPL). That is, the mechanism used to build GPL code is an intrinsic part of a GPL licensed work, and so cannot be licensed in an incompatible manner. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please sign and encrypt your mail.
Description: PGP signature