Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, now I finally got it right: It is about the scripts. What other people may call makefiles. The scripts and files bundled with your cdrtools to control the build process are under CDDL. E.g. RULES/i686-linux-gcc.rul: You did _not_ get it right. the file RULES/i686-linux-gcc.rul is part of a program that Debian replaced by cmake. This file is _not_ part of mkisofs and this file is _not_ part of the build scripts as it is part of the generic tool chain that is not required by the GPL to be part of the source. The program cmake is nothing than a less portable attempt o replace the features of the program called the schily makefile system. Both programs are not specific to a certain program but program independent. An interpretation of the GPL which I can follow. Well this is because you did oversee important facts in the GPL as many people do who claim to have read the GPL. As I did already explain the legal facts for using the program the schily makefile system (you should read it to reduce your confusion), let me explain why the GPL does not require the build scripts to be under GPL: If you _carefully_ read the GPL (lawyers do it, I did it but Debian doesn't), you will find the following important fact: The GPL uses the phrase under the terms of this License in all places except the place where it requires the scripts used to control compilation to be made available. It is obvious that this has been done intentionally. If you did understand the general intention of the GPL you would know that requiring these scripts to be under GPL would not be aligned with the basic idea of the GPL: you need to put everything under GPL that is a derived work of GPLd software. These scripts are obviously _not_ derived from the program. This is why they need to be available but not under GPL. As I wrote many times before: legal discussions are like programming. You do it wrong if you do not think all your ideas to it's logical end. If you forget to consider a fact when planning a program it will fail later. If you forget to consider a fact when you check your legal claims, they are not compatible with reality. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [09.07.08 11:57]: Well this is because you did oversee important facts in the GPL as many people do who claim to have read the GPL. As I did already explain the legal facts for using the program the schily makefile system (you should read it to reduce your confusion), let me explain why the GPL does not require the build scripts to be under GPL: If you _carefully_ read the GPL (lawyers do it, I did it but Debian doesn't), you will find the following important fact: The GPL uses the phrase under the terms of this License in all places except the place where it requires the scripts used to control compilation to be made available. The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. 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. You refer to that clause? This clause defines what source code is under some conditions. It states that Makefiles *are* source code, if you do a *binary* distribution. Therefor they have to be under GPL, if you do a binary distribution. As for Gentoo there is no limitation, because it is a source distribution. It is obvious that this has been done intentionally. If you did understand the general intention of the GPL you would know that requiring these scripts to be under GPL would not be aligned with the basic idea of the GPL: you need to put everything under GPL that is a derived work of GPLd software. These scripts are obviously _not_ derived from the program. This is why they need to be available but not under GPL. And it is quite obvious, that is meant the way I see it, because the binary is a derrived work, and in this special case some important parts of the process to get this derived work, must also be free. Sebastian -- Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpS426XJwXlz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you _carefully_ read the GPL (lawyers do it, I did it but Debian doesn't), you will find the following important fact: The GPL uses the phrase under the terms of this License in all places except the place where it requires the scripts used to control compilation to be made available. The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. 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. I get the impression that you have problems to understand even very obvious parts of the GPL, it seems that you would need to enhance your english. The GPL discriminates between the work (which needs to be under GPL) and the complete source which is a superset of the work and other parts that do not need to be under GPL. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [09.07.08 15:14]: Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you _carefully_ read the GPL (lawyers do it, I did it but Debian doesn't), you will find the following important fact: The GPL uses the phrase under the terms of this License in all places except the place where it requires the scripts used to control compilation to be made available. The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. 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. The GPL discriminates between the work (which needs to be under GPL) and the complete source which is a superset of the work and other parts that do not need to be under GPL. Nowhere in the whole GPL is stated that the complete source code is a superset of the work. The work is only used to refer ro projects which *use* the Program, which is the term used for the primary object of the licence. Jörg Read again yourself, brother Sebastian -- Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpqcqPzpYIJs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL discriminates between the work (which needs to be under GPL) and the complete source which is a superset of the work and other parts that do not need to be under GPL. Nowhere in the whole GPL is stated that the complete source code is a superset of the work. The work is only used to refer ro projects which *use* the Program, which is the term used for the primary object of the licence. You would need to reread the GPL until you understand 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
On 9 Jul 2008, at 14:13, Joerg Schilling wrote: ... I get the impression that you have problems to understand even very obvious parts of the GPL, it seems that you would need to enhance your english. You frikkin' clown, Joerg. On 9 Jul 2008, at 10:56, Joerg Schilling wrote: ... Well this is because you did oversee important facts in the GPL as many people do who claim to have read the GPL. ... You demonstrate in this earlier message today that you don't know the difference between oversee and overlook, two quite different words with different meanings. You really are not in a position to chastise others' English - your English usage being quite clumsy at the *best* of times. In fact, this causes me to wonder if all your problems stem from a failure to understand the GPL. Perhaps it is YOU who has misread it? Certainly, when you speak in English, your own words cannot be trusted. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really are not in a position to chastise others' English - your English usage being quite clumsy at the *best* of times. Wenn Du glaubst Problmeme mit meinem Englisch zu haben, dann laß uns einfach die Diskusion in Deutsch weiterführen. Ich befürchte aber, das wird uns beide auch nicht weiterbringen weil Du bislang nichts wirklich Hilfreiches zur Diskusion beitragen konntest. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
On 9 Jul 2008, at 15:05, Joerg Schilling wrote: Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really are not in a position to chastise others' English - your English usage being quite clumsy at the *best* of times. Wenn Du glaubst Problmeme mit meinem Englisch zu haben, dann laß uns einfach die Diskusion in Deutsch weiterführen. Ich befürchte aber, das wird uns beide auch nicht weiterbringen weil Du bislang nichts wirklich Hilfreiches zur Diskusion beitragen konntest. I trust this indicates that in future you'll only be posting to gentoo-user-de http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user-de/ Stroller. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
Mike Edenfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Firstly, the cdrkit source ships with all of the cmake scripts that are needed by cmake to build the project. This is all that is required by the GPL. And before you tell me to look again or go read something or whatever -- I did. I have the cdrkit source tarball right here, and I'm looking at the files in question. I also have a copy of the GPL, which says exactly this: plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. Note there is no requirement that the actual *build tools* be included, only the scripts used to control them. Otherwise it would be illegal to ship any GPL'd program without the entire source to make, gcc, binutils, sed, awk, cat, etc. Well, now that you found this out, does this mean that you finally concur with me that Bloch Co. are license trolls? You may have no experiences with the systematic ways to prove/disprove things I use, but you still found that it is ridiculous to claim that the GPL requires you to _include_ the complete toolchain _under_ _GPL_. And because it is ridiculous to claim that the GPL requires you to include the toolchain, it is of course ridiculous to tell people that the schily makefilesystem (being a independently developed program) needs to be part of cdrtools. The next step in understanding why Bloch is a license troll is to understand that _iff_ Bloch/Debian seriuosly believe that the schily makefilesystem is part of cdrtools and needs to be published under GPL together with cdrtools, then _of_ _course_ the same applies to cmake which is just a replacement for the schily makefilesystem. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
And before you tell me to look again or go read something or whatever -- I did. I have the cdrkit source tarball right here, and I'm looking at the files in question. I also have a copy of the GPL, which says exactly this: plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. Note there is no requirement that the actual *build tools* be included, only the scripts used to control them. Otherwise it would be illegal to ship any GPL'd program without the entire source to make, gcc, binutils, sed, awk, cat, etc. You may have no experiences with the systematic ways to prove/disprove things I use, but you still found that it is ridiculous to claim that the GPL requires you to _include_ the complete toolchain _under_ _GPL_. It is ridiculous indeed. Now please, where do they claim the GPLv2 requires that the whole toolchain needs to be under the GPLv2? And because it is ridiculous to claim that the GPL requires you to include the toolchain, it is of course ridiculous to tell people that the schily makefilesystem (being a independently developed program) needs to be part of cdrtools. The GPLv2 neither requires to include the toolchain nor is it ridiculous to pay attention to GPLv2 §3 which talks explicitely about the build scripts. The next step in understanding why Bloch is a license troll is to understand that _iff_ Bloch/Debian seriuosly believe that the schily makefilesystem is part of cdrtools and needs to be published under GPL together with cdrtools, then _of_ _course_ the same applies to cmake which is just a replacement for the schily makefilesystem. Please read GPLv2 §3. It's talking about scripts used to control compilation. That term applies to your schily makefilesystem but NOT to cmake. The cmake scripts are indeed included with the source and are under GPLv2. - Sascha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The next step in understanding why Bloch is a license troll is to understand that _iff_ Bloch/Debian seriuosly believe that the schily makefilesystem is part of cdrtools and needs to be published under GPL together with cdrtools, then _of_ _course_ the same applies to cmake which is just a replacement for the schily makefilesystem. Please read GPLv2 ?3. It's talking about scripts used to control compilation. That term applies to your schily makefilesystem but NOT to cmake. The cmake scripts are indeed included with the source and are under GPLv2. I am sorry to see that you did not inform yourself well enough about cdrtools. This caused you to ask a useless question that you could avoid if you did understand the background! Some hints to you: If you replace nail A by nail B, it still remains a nail. If you believe that the schily makefilesystem refers to scripts used to control compilation, then cmake of course is nothing different. If you believe that cmake is a separate program, then of course the schily makefilesystem is also a separate program. Now you should _carefully_ read your own text You introduced the term cmake scripts for your own confusion. If you understand _what_ this is in _contrary to cmake or the schily makefilesystem, you answered your question and you know why Bloch/Debian cannot be taken for serious. I recommend you to first inform yourself before asking again 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [08.07.08 15:10]: Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some hints to you: If you replace nail A by nail B, it still remains a nail. If you believe that the schily makefilesystem refers to scripts used to control compilation, then cmake of course is nothing different. If you believe that cmake is a separate program, then of course the schily makefilesystem is also a separate program. Now you should _carefully_ read your own text You introduced the term cmake scripts for your own confusion. If you understand _what_ this is in _contrary to cmake or the schily makefilesystem, you answered your question and you know why Bloch/Debian cannot be taken for serious. OK, now I finally got it right: It is about the scripts. What other people may call makefiles. The scripts and files bundled with your cdrtools to control the build process are under CDDL. E.g. RULES/i686-linux-gcc.rul: #ident @(#)i586-linux-gcc.rul 1.11 07/05/09 ### # Written 1996 by J. Schilling ### # # Platform dependent MACROS for Linux # ### # Copyright (c) J. Schilling ### # The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the # Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only # (the License). You may not use this file except in compliance # with the License. # # See the file CDDL.Schily.txt in this distribution for details. # # When distributing Covered Code, include this CDDL HEADER in each # file and include the License file CDDL.Schily.txt from this distribution. ### But the Debian maintainers stated, that this files - *necessary* to build cdrtools - have to be under GPL. An interpretation of the GPL which I can follow. I recommend you to first inform yourself before asking again So now I'm informed (you did *not* help, on the contrary...): All the fuzz because of the Makefiles? You really must hate the GPL, for not double licensing these. Jörg BTW: for the next time, and there will be a next time, just copy yourself the following disclaimer and include it to every mail: You are using a fork of the original software, which may not support all features, which are already implemented in the original. The fork is based on the disagreement on how the GPL is to be interpreted: 1) linking of GPL and CDDL code. The FSF states that you cannot legally link GPL and CDDL code, but there is no word about linking in the GPL. 2) about the license of makefiles. The distribution which first excluded cdrtools, insisted on the fact, that all makefiles had to be under GPL to distribute it. This is a corrlation of two unrelated clauses in the GPL. I therfor behold this interpretation of GPL as wrong, and urge you to use the orginal as it has more features, and also advise all binary distributors to contact their lawyers to verify my opinion, as I have done. This so called problem definitely does not apply for all source based distributions (e.g. Gentoo). So there is no problem to use the original. Put some links in it, maybe with quotings of some resonable people, thus not you! An also not a link to your awfull page http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html This should be all about the issue; no insults, no conspiracy theories, no discussions about freedom with me. It is not for your cause... If your software is superior, than you should not have to insult any other people. Let your software speak. Like you said in the debian bugreport: Der Ton macht die Musike saying This feature is only implemented in the orginal, use this and your problem is gone. gets far mor people on your side than Your are using a software implemented by dorks, full of bugs and they dared to mess with my beloved code. Peaceful Sebastian, which still resides on the FSF and Debian way of seeing things. And remember: there will always be people that have another, even contrary, opinion than yours. Try to convince them, and not insult them. -- Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp1synrkVKkR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit emerge -av cdrtools)
Joerg Schilling wrote: They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not included in the source. You keep saying this, but I just don't see where it's coming from. Firstly, the cdrkit source ships with all of the cmake scripts that are needed by cmake to build the project. This is all that is required by the GPL. And before you tell me to look again or go read something or whatever -- I did. I have the cdrkit source tarball right here, and I'm looking at the files in question. I also have a copy of the GPL, which says exactly this: plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. Note there is no requirement that the actual *build tools* be included, only the scripts used to control them. Otherwise it would be illegal to ship any GPL'd program without the entire source to make, gcc, binutils, sed, awk, cat, etc. Secondly, even if they were required to include cmake in the cdrkit package, they can legally ship cmake and cdrkit in a single package under the GPL -- the modified BSD license allows this exact combination. They don't do this because they don't *need* to, but if they did need to, it would be perfectly legitimate. I may not be convinced of truth of their argument that cdrtools has licensing issues. That depends entirely on where you draw the line between a compilation, which is a derivative work under copyright law, and a mere aggregation, which is not. But I *am* absolutely convinced that your counter-argument about cdrkit is absolutely false. --K -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
