* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [09.07.08 15:21]: > Sebastian Günther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You obviously missread the GPL. See your other mail that verifies that you > did > not understand the GPL correctly. >
No, the only thing is that I don't apply to *your* *interpretation* of the GPL, and I'm not alone, Debian is with me. But remember your opinion and mine are just *opinions*, only a court of law could proove eitherof us wrong. > > > 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. > OK, Jörg, we agree on smake must not be included in the distribution, but can you build the binary without any of the files in RULES/ ? > > > > 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. > There is no "official" meaning of free, nor will there ever be one. There are several agreements on what free means; that's why the FSF *states* their meaning of freedom as the first thing on their homepage. You have another opinion of what "free" means, that's fine, that's your lawful right. Go, take a Philosophy 101. > > > > 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" > Ok in this special case: The bucket is the instructionsset to build cdrtools, and you put fire (CDDL Makefile) and water (GPL Makefile) in it. Won't work! The only solution is to make water to fire (not allowed, it is GPLed, and your are not the only author) or fire to water. So if your are using code, e.g. a library, which is GPLed, your whole project has to GPLed. That's it. That simple. Sebastian -- " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. " Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp8bCfDWvG14.pgp
Description: PGP signature
