Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > #include <hallo.h> > * Joerg Schilling [Mon, Mar 20 2006, 11:21:30PM]: > > > It seems that you never did read and understand the GPL :-( > > > > The GPL is as holey as a Swiss cheese when talking about the compile > > environment: > > ... > > Joerg, could you please stay ontopic and not flame? We try to discuss > with you...
Sorry, I definitely did not flame but I don't have impression that you are intrested in a discussion! So please reply to my mail instead of adding unrelated new stuff. > And we *do* understand the GPL, and its not only one interpretation of > the GPL. You can read our -legal list too see much more of that, please > look at [URLS] for more information. Sorry, but the way you are arguing shows that you obviously have problems to understand the GPL. ----> Please tell me why you are trying to use the "majestetis pluralis"? **** Unrelated stuff removed ***** > And finally, in the last mail I have already presented the exact chain > of conclusions, including the intent of the OP. I expect you (as > programmer knowing how logic works) to be able to find the wrong link > there -- so would you consider answering this (uncomfortable) question? > > URLS: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00362.html The person did not understand the GPL and is writing unrelated stuff. See my last mail for more information. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00391.html Unrelated to our discussion. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00375.html Unrelated to our discussion. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00376.html This is what I did explain in my last mail! Why don't you read my last mail? > > If you would understand enough from the topic, you would understand that > > the "related" makefiles of my software are always present under the same > > license as the rest of the project but the unrelated (because project > > indepentent) makefilesystem is just available under it's native license. > > Somehow all our other GPLed software has "related build software" either > licensed under GPL compatible license (*) or beeing that far different that > its maker can declare the outcome as a product rather than a derivate > (compilers). See above, you did not read the mail you are replying to..... Let me explain it another time: "cdrecord/Makefile" is no script but a program used to control compilation of the sub project cdrecord. This file is part of the cdrtools project as well as "TARGETS/cdrecord" is. "RULES/rules1.top" is part of another project and not part of the project cdrtools. This file may be under a different licernse for this reason (unless you define the GPL as a licence that is voiolating the DFSG). The smake source is also another project and _not_ even included although you need smake on most platforms. Please do not reply again unless you have new arguments that are really related to the claims of the OP. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
