Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

["Sebastian Günther" <samson@guenther-roetgen.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3798 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 11:22]:
> Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
> > Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 16:12:43 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> > > Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> > > > The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
> > > > directory.  The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
> > > > directory.  THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
> > > > just like any other source file.
> > > >
> > > > In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL.  In cdrkit, that file is
> > >
> > > This is a definite lie!
> > File RULES/rules.top, which is included in mkisofs/Makefile:
> >
> > # The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
> > # Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only.
> >
> > Please tell us now that it is NOT covered by the CDDL. That file is obviously 
> > a script to control the build process.
> 
> Besides the fact that this is completely irrelevent (the GPL does _not_ require
> what they call "the scripts...." to be under GPL), you are missinterpreting 
> software and legal definitions!
> 

This is *your* opinion of interpreting the GPL, the Debian People and 
also myself reading the GPL in the way that also the make script has to 
be under GPL, because if you distribute *binaries* you have to 
provide the "make" scripts and the source code under GPL.

> 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.

BTW: Your interpretation of Makefiles as source code in a specific 
language is quite farfetched.

> 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.

> 
> 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
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote 
it. "


Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]