#include <hallo.h> * Joerg Schilling [Sat, Apr 01 2006, 04:46:48PM]: > Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you for this clarification. > > Unfortunately it does not include a translation for an important part found > in > the German text:
The translation has been sent to you and did not receive any comments for this part. And I have the impression that we did already agree on the interpretation of part four in German. Explicitely, I keep repeating that this part is meant for the _strong interpretation_ (AS WRITTEN THERE), that is the one of the OP and the one that people on debian-legal seem to agree on but the interpration that you do not consider as valid. Your interpretation may be valid, therefore I cannot blame you for license violation without hard proof valid in our (German) law system. > > Punkt 4: > > > > Es liegt ebenfalls keine Vertragsverletzung beim Vertrieb weiterer sich im > > Archiv cdrtools befindlichen Werke vor, deren Rechteinhaber aus mehr als > > einer Person (Joerg Schilling) bestehen. Auch unter der strengen > > Interpretation des Paragraphen 3 der GPLv2 (siehe Punkt 3) kann nicht von > > einer Verletzung der Vorgaben der Paragraphen 2 und 3 ausgegangen werden, > > weil die Voraussetzungen zum Übersetzen der Werke entweder auf triviale > > Weise hergestellt werden können oder die notwendigen Komponenten von Joerg > > Schilling bereits öffentlich zugänglich gemacht wurden, unter anderem in > > vorherigen Versionen des Archives cdrtools. > > It is important to know that the part of the text from the OP ( from GPL §3) > cannot be set in relation to GPL §2. > > While GPL §3 requires the "scripts" used to control compilation and > installation of the executable to be included in the source, GPL §3 does > definitely not require them to be made available under GPL. Joerg, if you want to see that this way, see it that way. If you see it that way, that it is your right and it should be seen that way and then you are right (unless someone can proof any claims in a court). > GPL §2 does not define these scripts to be part of the "work". > > In fact, the "Schily makefile system" is a different work that is used > unmodified by many other works. Yes, it may be a separated work, as said in II. We have discussed II and you agreed. What is still needed to please you? <removed the part that I would like to say but which may interpreted as public insult> > In addition, the Makefiles are no "scripts" but a program written in a > non-algorithmic prgramming language. Deciding that is not my beer. And if you prefer hunting the messengers, critism of your attitude may bring me into legal trouble faster than achieving any success. You can forbid me saying things, not thinking them. Eduard.
