Hello,
[ I'm leaning somewhat out of the window here w/o being a law expert ] On Wed, 12.07.2006 at 12:46:51 -0700, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg clearly stands that: > > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may > be called "scripts": > ... > Makefiles are programs written in a non-scripting language: > I call this language "make". It is a non-algorithmic language but but he and you are dead wrong on that, imho. For me at least, a "script" is anything that can be executed using shebang, and makefiles _can_, as your famous debian/rules file demonstrates. > This means in other words: If I take other people's GPL code and create > a "derived work" from that code, I need to make the whole work available > under GPL. I do not need to make non-GPL code available at all, if GPL > code is derived on that code. I do not need to make the build system > available under GPL (GPL ยง3 requires me to make it available but does > not mention a license) and the build system is not code that is > "derived" from the GPLd project.""" This is imho a very broken interpretation because the build system is usually an intimate part of the whole, and often enough, source code with no idea about how to tie everything together is not nearly half as useful as a "full" source is. Think of KDE w/o a build system, or the Linux kernel, for instance... which would almost certainly defeat the purpose of enabling others to change and expand on "given" code, and also open the door for all kinds of abuse. Maybe we should solicit the legal opinion of the FSFE or so on this matter. But in reality, this all belongs on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
