On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 16:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> 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.
sure. and many would argue that it is not. I personally don't care much.
Well, it is not really productive, and as I said, I don't want to insist
on (1). So, for me, this topic is closed.