Shriramana Sharma writes: > Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: >>>> Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source >>>> necessary to build the software, including supporting libraries, >>>> compilation scripts, and so on. >>> Thank you for proving that I am 100% correct! >>> >>> The GPL does require you to provide everything that is needed but it does >>> _not_ require to put more than "the work" under GPL. >> >> I can't imagine how you came to this conclusion, as the quoted section states >> quite the opposite - you need to include the compilation scripts, whether or >> not you consider them to be part of "the work". > > Schilling has a point here. The GPL does not explicitly say that > whatever puts the "complete" in "complete source code" must also be > licensed under the same license as the source itself, i.e. under the > GPL.
>From GPLv2: 2(b): "You must cause any work [that contains or is derived from the Program] to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." Later: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole." 3(a): "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above[...]". The plainest reading is that the complete source code -- the work as a whole, including build scripts -- must be licensed under the terms of the GPL. Reading it otherwise requires over-parsing the license or picking things out of context. To borrow a phrase, most of us do not have the political clout to successfully argue that the truth "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]