Re: The legality of cdrecord
John Halton <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:21:25PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > On 11/8/07, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > > "John Halton" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to
> > > > appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be
> > > > distributed under the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence
> > > > for that non-GPL code.
> > >
> > > This is a false claim! The GPL does not require to change the
> > > license of such other code and any lawyer would laugh on you as
> > > this would be illegal.
> To clarify: it's not that the GPL requires you to "change the licence"
> of other code. It is that the GPL requires certain code (derivative
> works, build scripts necessary to compile the software) to be licensed
> under the GPL.
You need to reread the GPL to understand it correctly:
The GPL requires to publish "all" from "the work" to be published under the
GPL but not more.
- The build scripts in many cases are not part of "the work".
This is true for all software that e.g. uses autoconf.
This is true for all software that usees other independent
This is true in the cdrtools case.
Your misunderstanding is that you did not grok the fact that the GPL
distinguishes between "the work" and "the whole source".
- "the work" needs to be under GPL
- The GPL does not require _anyting_ for the other parts that are
needed to create "the whole source" except that it needs to be
Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of "the work":
- You do not need to put "non-derived" code under the GPL.
[ the rest of your claims is just a flollow up mistake ]
EMail:email@example.com (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
firstname.lastname@example.org (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily