[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cdrtools

On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:25:00AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >Erast Benson wrote:
> >> 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) 
> >GPL 3(a) requires the "complete corresponding source code [be]
> >distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above....". GPL 3
> >defines the source code to include the "the scripts used to control
> >compilation and installation of the executable."
> Again a person who tries to bend the GPL to his wishes......

Gee, that sounds familiar somehow.

> You should better _read_ the GPL and try to understand it.

Good plan.

> GPL §2 defines what the "work" is and requres to publish the whole 
> work under the GPL in case that that work incorporates other 
> peoples work under GPL. (*)
> The GPL allows to publish "the scripts used to control 
> compilation and installation of the executable." under _any_ license
> as the scripts are not part of the "work".

These scripts are referred to in GPL§3, not §2. So much for reading the

GPL§3 clearly says what you may do when you distribute binary versions
of the Program, and gives you three options:

3a) accompany it with complete source code, to be distributed "under the
terms of Sections 1 and 2 above" (i.e., under the GPL);

3b) accompany it with a written offer to offer the source "under the
terms of Sections 1 and 2 above" (i.e., under the GPL);

3c) pass on an already existing written offer as defined in 3b), under
certain conditions

Additionally, it defines "source code" as follows:

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 scrips used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.[...]

I fail to see how your claim holds, given the above, but I'm willing to
be educated.

> Note it is unclear whether the makefiles could be called "scripts"

Unproven assertion.

> and that in case of cdrtools, the build system is even a _different_
> "work" that has been published _before_ the first cdrecord came out.

If you're referring to smake here, then I cannot help but disagree with

Surely automake, GNU make, bash, and so on, were written before most of
the projects that use them. However, that does not mean that the build
system is a totally different "work"; the particular version of
configure.ac, Makefile.am/Makefile.in/Makefile, and any .sh scripts that
are part of the source tarball are part of the build system, even if the
interpreters that are used to run them are not.

In the same way, smake is indeed a different work, but the makefiles
that are shipped with cdrecord are not.

Am I missing something?

> *) It does not even require to publish the whole work under the GPL 
> in case that you add code to a GPL project! In this case the added
> code may under _any_ license (even Closed source).

Could you quote the part of the GPL on which you base this assertion? It
is not clear to me.

> AGAIN: If you like to understant/interpret a contract like the GPL,

The GPL is a license, not a contract.

> you need to read it carefully word by word and are not allowed to 
> add claims that are not written in the GPL.


Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Reply to: