Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But as far as my memory serves, the issue was not that cdrtools were
> GPL, but that the toolchain for building cdrtools source (was that
> called "schilly-tools"?) was non-GPL. And the dispute was about the
> interpretation of the GPL --- does it require you to license the whole
> build-toolchain as GPL if cdrtools are GPL, or does it not
> require you to do so. And that was where things regarding GPL
> interpretations got complicated, and all that ugly story with Debian
> folks that followed.
Correct, Eduard Bloch (a hostile packager) came first up with personal insults
and later created a red herring and turned these insults into a so called
license dispute.
This was an attack based on the wrong interpretations of the GPL you repeated
above.
The GPL is very clear about the fact that the build system is not an integral
part of the work and that it may be licensed under _any_ license - it just
needs to be included.
The false interpretation of the GPL in order to attack projects is partucularly
problematic as one month before, a book on the GPL was published by Till Jaeger
et al (most well known pro GPL lawyers) and that book of course explains the
correct interpretation of the GPL. See:
http://www.osscc.net/de/gplger.html#gpl-complete-source
It is a pitty that after Debian turned into a hostile distro other Linux
distros followed the false claims from Debian instead of asking specialized
lawyers.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (uni)
joerg.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
