question about RedHat/Fedora and the GPL

[condition terminal]

On 6/6/05, Arjan van de Ven <arjanv at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 19:48 +1200, condition terminal wrote:
> > On 6/6/05, Arjan van de Ven <arjanv at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 16:26 +1200, condition terminal wrote:
> > > > OK, firstly, I am sorry if I am miss understanding the text of the GPL.
> > > >
> > > > The part I am questioning is this:
> > > >
> > > > ---QUOTE---
> > > > 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.
> > > > --END--QUOTE---
> > > >
> > > > should this not mean that the likes of "beehive" be distributed?
> > >
> > > > Am I barking up the wrong tree and completely missing the point?
> > >
> > > yes. All the scripts needed to control the compilation and installation
> > > of the executable is in the src.rpm perfectly fine.
> >
> > OK then.. so how are the files and scripts used to control the
> > building of the rpms outside the specs excluded from the conditions of
> > the GPL?
> 
> I guess it comes down to with what you mean with "control". I'm not a
> lawyer, but control means to me "have impact on the result". The goal is
> that the binary building process is fully reproducable (see earlier
> parts of the license about the rationale). All the parts that impact the
> results are included in the src.rpm (with some global settings from
> redhat-rpm-config which is also shipped). The RH buildsystem actually
> calls rpmbuild to build the binary, all it does on top of that is some
> queueing. Queueing does not impact the outcome of the build in any way.

beehive does impact the result of the binary build. 

You can argue that you can build an identical binary with out it, but
you could do the same without the spec file.

beehive is used to control the process to generate GPL binaries.
Therefore, it should be released under the same terms.

Like wise with the scripts and tools used to build ISOs.

> 
> The intent of the GPL is clearly that you have to provide the Makefiles
> and any other scripts you use to build the source code. A src.rpm is
> clearly that, it has everything used to build the source code (if it
> didn't the RH buildsystem couldn't even build it in the first place).

Intent is not law. Please don't make a case on intent. 

The GPL clearly states that files used to control the building and
making of GPL source and binaries must be provided under the same
terms.

> Or in other words "scripts to control compilation of the executable"
> means "makefiles and related". I'd argue that a buildsystem doesn't
> contain scripts to control the binary, what it does is invoke those
> scripts at certain moments in time. That's a pretty important
> difference. There is a gray area, and that gray area is if a spec file
> belongs into this. When the sourcecode is autoconf'd, is a spec file
> that just calls configure, make and make install something that controls
> the compilation of the executable? Borderline. I guess you can argue it
> does since the outcome changes depending on the the configure flags
> passed, and if the spec does pass any, it's controls the creation of the
> binary.
> 

So your saying that beehive doesn't control the process? ha! 

Intent and grey area. I guess thats your arguement. 

ta.