Re: License concerns regarding package lft
Terry Hancock <hancock@anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> No, what I *said* is that "tools" are not "materials", which they are
> not -- at least not unless you use them as such. If you build a house
> out of hammers, *then* the hammers are "materials", otherwise, they are
> "tools".
So, to be clear: you would claim that if one says 'this house is made using
these materials' then the tools are not included in 'materials'?
Would you expect an art *materials* catalogue to include easels, brushes,
knives and other things used to make the art but not included in it?
Here are the top three results of a web search for art materials:
http://www.dickblick.com/
http://www.homecrafts.co.uk/html/categories.asp?cat1=3
http://www.artdiscount.co.uk/
> [...] foregone conclusion in a license text that definitions are
> relative to the work being licensed! When a license says "derivative",
> we all understand without being told that "derivative of the work being
> licensed" is meant, and not "derivative of some other, unrelated work".
I don't see the relevance of stating the obvious here.
> Hence, when we say "materials", we mean "used AS materials", not "things
> that could in principle be used as materials but were in fact used as
> tools".
But they are used as materials IMO. Returning to the house-building
example, I don't see hammers as consumed entirely by my construction,
so I wouldn't expect to see them on my bill of materials, but they are
materials used in the construction, so I'd expect them to be available
from a building materials supplier.
[...]
> The strawman you are attempting to bait me with [...]
Please, get over this. I'm not baiting anyone with any scarecrow.
I'm trying to understand how it is possible to claim that compilers
don't fit the meaning of materials there - in fact, unlike most hammers,
most compilers even leave part of themselves in the construction - and
whether this is based on a misunderstanding like the one posted about
copyleft and upstream contributions recently.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: