cdrtools - a tale of two licenses
Posted Aug 13, 2006 8:18 UTC (Sun) by dmantione
Parent article: cdrtools - a tale of two licenses
Schilling is right here.
* Schilling says his Makefiles are and independent work, because it is a
* The GPL says that the Makefiles belong to the source code and the GPL
does not allow mixing these licenses.
Now, if I release a program under GPL, this usually means the Makefiles
are also GPL. So, the GPL requires that if someone distributes the
binary, I also need to distributes the Makefiles.
But, the GPL cannot go beyond the boundaries of copyright law. If,
according to copyright law two works are independend, then the GPL has
nothing to say about it. Its contents are irrelevant.
Now Schilling is claiming his Makefile, because it is a full program, is
an independend work. That means the GPL is irrelevant until you prove it
is not an independend work.
However, the Debian people are trying to prove the Makefile is GPL by
reading the GPL. This is wrong, you first need to prove the Makefile is
not an independend work, and only then you can start reading the GPL. The
only document that matters at this time is this:
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/ , the German copyright law.
Proving that is Makefile is a derrived work is not very easy. In
copyright, the opinion of the author matters a lot. Now the author of
both cdrtools and the Makefile considers them independend works.
to post comments)