On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 03:57:18PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > On 11/7/07, John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > I'd be interested to know which "lawyer statements" you are referring > > to (genuine question - feel free to mail me the details off-list if > > you've previously posted them here). > > Try > > http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
Thanks. I must admit I only glanced through this, and can't pretend to give a learned opinion on Prof. Determann's learned opinion. But from what I understand of the technical aspects of the discussion in this thread, this isn't a matter of whether the CDDL-licensed code is being statically or dynamically linked, but of the following wording from the GPL v.2: "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, *plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable*." So the question is not whether the CDDL code has been incorporated into a derived work and is therefore covered by the GPL on that basis. My understanding is that build scripts would not fall within that category anyway. The question is whether those build scripts themselves can be distributed under the GPL (as required by the GPL), and the answer (as I understand it) is no, because that would breach the terms of the CDDL. John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
