on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)
 

Joerg Schilling wrote:


They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced it
with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not included in
the source.


You keep saying this, but I just don't see where it's coming from.

Firstly, the cdrkit source ships with all of the cmake scripts that are
needed by cmake to build the project. This is all that is required by
the GPL.


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.


Secondly, even if they were required to include cmake in the cdrkit
package, they can legally ship cmake and cdrkit in a single package
under the GPL -- the modified BSD license allows this exact combination.
They don't do this because they don't *need* to, but if they did need
to, it would be perfectly legitimate.


I may not be convinced of truth of their argument that cdrtools has
licensing issues. That depends entirely on where you draw the line
between a compilation, which is a derivative work under copyright law,
and a mere aggregation, which is not. But I *am* absolutely convinced
that your counter-argument about cdrkit is absolutely false.


--K
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)
 

Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:

> Firstly, the cdrkit source ships with all of the cmake scripts that are
> needed by cmake to build the project. This is all that is required by
> the GPL.
>
> 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.

Well, now that you found this out, does this mean that you finally concur with
me that Bloch & Co. are license trolls?

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_.

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 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".


Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)
 

> > 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

on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)
 

Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:

> > 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.

I am sorry to see that you did not inform yourself well enough about cdrtools.
This caused you to ask a useless question that you could avoid if you did
understand the background!


Some hints to you:

If you replace nail A by nail B, it still remains a nail.

If you believe that "the schily makefilesystem" refers to
"scripts used to control compilation", then "cmake" of course
is nothing different.

If you believe that "cmake" is a separate program, then of course
"the schily makefilesystem" is also a separate program.


Now you should _carefully_ read your own text........
You introduced the term "cmake scripts" for your own confusion. If you understand
_what_ this is in _contrary to "cmake" or "the schily makefilesystem", you
answered your question and you know why Bloch/Debian cannot be taken for serious.


I recommend you to first inform yourself before asking again....

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)
 

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> OK, now I finally got it right:
>
> It is about the "scripts". What other people may call makefiles.
>
> The scripts and files bundled with your cdrtools to control the build
> process are under CDDL.
>
> E.g. RULES/i686-linux-gcc.rul:

You did _not_ get it right.

the file RULES/i686-linux-gcc.rul is part of a program that Debian replaced by
cmake. This file is _not_ part of mkisofs and this file is _not_ part of "the
build scripts" as it is part of the generic tool chain that is not required by
the GPL to be part of the source. The program "cmake" is nothing than a less
portable attempt o replace the features of the program called "the schily
makefile system". Both programs are not specific to a certain program but
program independent.

> An interpretation of the GPL which I can follow.

Well this is because you did oversee important facts in the GPL as many people
do who claim to have read the GPL.

As I did already explain the legal facts for using the program "the schily
makefile system" (you should read it to reduce your confusion), let me explain
why the GPL does not require "the build scripts" to be under GPL:

If you _carefully_ read the GPL (lawyers do it, I did it but Debian doesn't),
you will find the following important fact:

The GPL uses the phrase "under the terms of this License" in all places except
the place where it requires "the scripts used to control compilation" to be
made available.

It is obvious that this has been done intentionally. If you did understand the
general intention of the GPL you would know that requiring these "scripts" to
be under GPL would not be aligned with the basic idea of the GPL: "you need to
put everything under GPL that is a derived work of GPLd software". These
scripts are obviously _not_ derived from the program. This is why they need to
be available but not under GPL.

As I wrote many times before: legal discussions are like programming. You do it
wrong if you do not think all your ideas to it's logical end. If you forget to
consider a fact when planning a program it will fail later. If you forget to
consider a fact when you check your legal claims, they are not compatible with
reality.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)
 

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> > If you _carefully_ read the GPL (lawyers do it, I did it but Debian doesn't),
> > you will find the following important fact:
> >
> > The GPL uses the phrase "under the terms of this License" in all places except
> > the place where it requires "the scripts used to control compilation" to be
> > made available.
> >
>
> " The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
> code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
> associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> control compilation and installation of the executable."

I get the impression that you have problems to understand even very obvious
parts of the GPL, it seems that you would need to enhance your english.....

The GPL discriminates between "the work" (which needs to be under GPL)
and "the complete source" which is a superset of "the work" and other parts
that do not need to be under GPL.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)
 

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> > The GPL discriminates between "the work" (which needs to be under GPL)
> > and "the complete source" which is a superset of "the work" and other parts
> > that do not need to be under GPL.
> >
> Nowhere in the whole GPL is stated that "the complete source code" is a
> superset of "the work". "The work" is only used to refer ro projects
> which *use* "the Program", which is the term used for the primary object
> of the licence.

You would need to reread the GPL until you understand this ;-)

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)
 

On 9 Jul 2008, at 14:13, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...
I get the impression that you have problems to understand even very
obvious
parts of the GPL, it seems that you would need to enhance your
english.....


You frikkin' clown, Joerg.

On 9 Jul 2008, at 10:56, Joerg Schilling wrote:
...
Well this is because you did oversee important facts in the GPL as
many people do who claim to have read the GPL. ...

You demonstrate in this earlier message today that you don't know the
difference between "oversee" and "overlook", two quite different
words with different meanings.


You really are not in a position to chastise others' English - your
English usage being quite clumsy at the *best* of times.


In fact, this causes me to wonder if all your problems stem from a
failure to understand the GPL. Perhaps it is YOU who has misread it?
Certainly, when you speak in English, your own words cannot be trusted.


Stroller.

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)
 

Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> You really are not in a position to chastise others' English - your
> English usage being quite clumsy at the *best* of times.

Wenn Du glaubst Problmeme mit meinem Englisch zu haben, dann laß uns einfach
die Diskusion in Deutsch weiterführen.

Ich befürchte aber, das wird uns beide auch nicht weiterbringen weil Du
bislang nichts wirklich Hilfreiches zur Diskusion beitragen konntest.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)
 

On 9 Jul 2008, at 15:05, Joerg Schilling wrote:


Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:


You really are not in a position to chastise others' English - your
English usage being quite clumsy at the *best* of times.


Wenn Du glaubst Problmeme mit meinem Englisch zu haben, dann laß
uns einfach

die Diskusion in Deutsch weiterführen.

Ich befürchte aber, das wird uns beide auch nicht weiterbringen
weil Du

bislang nichts wirklich Hilfreiches zur Diskusion beitragen konntest.


I trust this indicates that in future you'll only be posting to
gentoo-user-de

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user-de/

Stroller.

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list