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

Re: The legality of cdrecord

Shriramana Sharma writes:

> 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.

>From GPLv2:

2(b): "You must cause any work [that contains or is derived from the
Program] to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License."  Later: "These requirements apply to
the modified work as a whole."

3(a): "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
and 2 above[...]".

The plainest reading is that the complete source code -- the work as a
whole, including build scripts -- must be licensed under the terms of
the GPL.  Reading it otherwise requires over-parsing the license or
picking things out of context.  To borrow a phrase, most of us do not
have the political clout to successfully argue that the truth "depends
on what the meaning of 'is' is".

Michael Poole

Reply to: