> > 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.
