Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote: >> Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the >> copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the >> cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context. >> >> In #350739, the reporter claims that we and JS are violating the GPL >> because not all files required to create the executable work are >> available under the GPL license. > > It's not that they have to be available, it's just that they have to > be compatible. [Moreover, JS violation of the GPL isn't interesting > because he's presumably the copyright holder, and can therefore do > whatever he wants with his work.]
Even if JS can do whatever he wants, Debian can't lawfully distribute a work with inconsistent license terms. >> CDDL is considered GPL-incompatible for linking with GPLed code. > > Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed > work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a > derivative work of the GPLed part of cdrecord and the build system. I disagree. The final executable is no more a derivative of the build system than it is of the compiler. After all, no parts of the makefiles end up inside the executable. >> We have the option of splitting the source package into code (GPLed) >> and meta-code (CDDL). Would that be suitable for main? > > I don't see how this would get around the GPL incompatibility issues, > as the build system is only useful for cdrecord. Not that I'd go so far as to call it useful, but JS does use the same makefile templates for other software. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
