Sebastian Günther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Besides the fact that this is completely irrelevent (the GPL does _not_
> > require
> > what they call "the scripts...." to be under GPL), you are missinterpreting
> > software and legal definitions!
> >
>
> This is *your* opinion of interpreting the GPL, the Debian People and
> also myself reading the GPL in the way that also the make script has to
> be under GPL, because if you distribute *binaries* you have to
> provide the "make" scripts and the source code under GPL.
You obviously missread the GPL. See your other mail that verifies that you did
not understand the GPL correctly.
> > RULES/rules.top is part of a program that is a _separate_ project called
> > "the
> > schily makefile system". It has been written in a language called "make"
> > and it
> > is much _older_ than and _independent_ from cdrtools.
> >
>
> Since GNU make reads this files, it seems that they *are* needed to
> build the binary, thus s.a.
> If they are *not* needed, then strip them from a GPL conform
> distribution.
You look confused. "the schily makefilesystem" is a generic part of the
toolchain. This piece of software does not need to be delivered at all.
If your claim was made for serious, you would be also require to deliver
e.g. the shell scripts "true" and "false" because they are read by the
"configure" shell script.
> > If "the schily makefile system" was under GPL, _then_ there was a problem
> > because the GPL limits the freedom to use software. As "the schily makefile
> > system" is under the more free CDDL that (in contrary to the GPL) does not
> > limit the freedom to use software, there is no problem.
> >
> No, it would only prevent the usage of "the schily makefile system" in
> non-free and/or incompatibly licenced projects. This is maybe not what
> you want, but some other people like to *stay* on the free side of life.
You would need to learn the official meaning of the term "free". The GPL in the
specific case of "the schily makefilesystem" limits the "freedom to use" which
is why the GPL is unacceptable for this kind of free software.
> > mkisofs/Makefile is a "derived work" from "the schily makefile system". The
> > CDDL gives you the freedom to have a derived work under a license that is
> > not
> > the CDDL.
> >
> If this is true, than you could also say, that your are "linking"
> mkisofs/Makefile (under GPL) and some RULES/*.rul (under CDDL) together,
> with is illegal according to the FSF.
>
> I know that linking is not stated *literally* within the GPL, but the
> whole following paragraph of the GPL can and *is* interpreted to also
> cover linking:
>
> " These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
....
Let us stop here and continue after you managed to understand the difference
between
- "the bucket contains water"
and
- "the water contains a bucket"
Come back after you learned this.....
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
--
[email protected] mailing list
