FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-08-2008, 03:03 PM
Sebastian Günther
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [08.07.08 15:10]:
> Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

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:

#ident "@(#)i586-linux-gcc.rul 1.11 07/05/09 "
################################################## #########################
# Written 1996 by J. Schilling
################################################## #########################
#
# Platform dependent MACROS for Linux
#
################################################## #########################
# Copyright (c) J. Schilling
################################################## #########################
# The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
# Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only
# (the "License"). You may not use this file except in compliance
# with the License.
#
# See the file CDDL.Schily.txt in this distribution for details.
#
# When distributing Covered Code, include this CDDL HEADER in each
# file and include the License file CDDL.Schily.txt from this distribution.
################################################## #########################


But the Debian maintainers stated, that this files - *necessary* to
build cdrtools - have to be under GPL.

An interpretation of the GPL which I can follow.

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

So now I'm informed (you did *not* help, on the contrary...):

All the fuzz because of the Makefiles? You really must hate the GPL, for
not double licensing these.

> Jörg
>

BTW: for the next time, and there will be a next time, just copy
yourself the following disclaimer and include it to every mail:

" You are using a fork of the original software, which may not support
all features, which are already implemented in the original.

The fork is based on the disagreement on how the GPL is to be
interpreted:
1) linking of GPL and CDDL code. The FSF states that you cannot legally
link GPL and CDDL code, but there is no word about linking in the
GPL.
2) about the license of makefiles. The distribution which
first excluded cdrtools, insisted on the fact, that all makefiles had
to be under GPL to distribute it. This is a corrlation of two
unrelated clauses in the GPL.

I therfor behold this interpretation of GPL as wrong, and urge you to
use the orginal as it has more features, and also advise all binary
distributors to contact their lawyers to verify my opinion, as I have
done.

This so called problem definitely does not apply for all source based
distributions (e.g. Gentoo). So there is no problem to use the
original."
Put some links in it, maybe with quotings of some resonable people, thus
not you! An also not a link to your awfull page
http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html

This should be all about the issue; no insults, no conspiracy theories,
no discussions about freedom with me. It is not for your cause...

If your software is superior, than you should not have to insult any
other people. Let your software speak. Like you said in the
debian bugreport: "Der Ton macht die Musike"

saying "This feature is only implemented in the orginal, use this and
your problem is gone." gets far mor people on your side than "Your are
using a software implemented by dorks, full of bugs and they dared to
mess with my beloved code."

Peaceful
Sebastian, which still resides on the FSF and Debian way of seeing
things.

And remember: there will always be people that have another, even
contrary, opinion than yours. Try to convince them, and not insult them.

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

SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de
 
Old 07-09-2008, 11:40 AM
Sebastian Günther
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 11:57]:

> 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.
>

" 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."

You refer to that clause?
This clause defines what source code is under some conditions. It states
that Makefiles *are* source code, if you do a *binary* distribution.

Therefor they have to be under GPL, if you do a binary distribution.

As for Gentoo there is no limitation, because it is a source
distribution.

> 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.
>

And it is quite obvious, that is meant the way I see it, because the
binary is a derrived work, and in this special case some important parts
of the process to get this derived work, must also be free.

Sebastian

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

SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de
 
Old 07-09-2008, 01:35 PM
Sebastian Günther
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 15:14]:
> 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."
>

> 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.

> Jörg
>
Read again yourself, brother
Sebastian

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

SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de
 
Old 07-09-2008, 02:18 PM
Sebastian Günther
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 15:47]:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
>
>
> You would need to reread the GPL until you understand this ;-)
>
OK, Jörg,

your the only person on this fricking planet, who actually understands
the GPL. Nor does the FSF, nor does the ignorant and incompentent crown
at Debian.

I bow for Thou, Oh Master!

How could I be so impudent to oppugn You?!

Well...

I'm right, you're wrong

EOD

Sebastian

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

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:49 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org