Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 01:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> 1) The GPL requires that all scripts used to control compilation and >> installation of the executable be released under terms compatible with >> the GPL. > > Joerg clearly stands that: > > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may > be called "scripts":
At that point we start getting into semantic arguments that are basically uninteresting to anyone other than a judge (and possibly not even then). As copyright holder, if this is Joerg's opinion, he can add an exception to the license that avoids the problem entirely. > 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.""" It's an interesting arugment But, again, this is semantic bickering and entirely unnecessary - if Joerg is copyright holder, he can ensure that the license reflects his opinion. > The key point is: GPL is pure source license. It does not explicitly > require you to use a specific license for the binary in case you make > the source available. Can I suggest you read section 2(b)? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
