Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source necessary to build the software, including supporting libraries, compilation scripts, and so on.Thank you for proving that I am 100% correct! The GPL does require you to provide everything that is needed but it does _not_ require to put more than "the work" under GPL.I can't imagine how you came to this conclusion, as the quoted section states quite the opposite - you need to include the compilation scripts, whether or not you consider them to be part of "the work".
Schilling has a point here. The GPL does not explicitly say that whatever puts the "complete" in "complete source code" must also be licensed under the same license as the source itself, i.e. under the GPL.
The essence of the argument is that some of you are saying that the scripts are also part of the work, and Schilling says they are not part of the work. It's for the lawyers to here to say whether it could be argued that building scripts are part of the work or not.
Personally I feel it could be at least strongly argued, even if not proved or held, that they are NOT.
If they were already part of the work, then why would the FSF even *need* to add an adjective "complete"? "You must provide the corresponding source code" would be sufficient, even without "complete". Not that the FSF writes words only when they can't do without them... But still the wording of the GPL does invite the sort of stances that Schilling has taken.
Shriramana Sharma.