Andrew Suffield writes: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 09:58:17PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 01:50:54AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > The "source code" for the documentation is embedded as comments in the > > > > program source code, in a doxygen-like way. > > > > > > > > Trolltech has not, to my knowledge, released the tool they use to > > > > generate the HTML from the comments. > > > > > > Then we do indeed have (yet again) a non-redistributable Qt bundle - > > > the GPL explicitly includes such tools as 'source', with the singular > > > exception that it doesn't include things normally shipped with the > > > operating system (like generic compilers). > > > > The GPL says: > > > > "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." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > (If there's some other rationale for "the GPL explicitly includes such tools > > as 'source'", I missed it.) > > I was referencing the ^^^ed part. That sentence reads to me as 'the > build system', and such a tool smells like part of the build system.
The ^^^ed part only mentions "the executable", not "the work" or "the documentation". Perhaps this is a drafting error that does not reflect the FSF's intention, but it is the language of the license. However, given the FSF's distinction between free documentation and free software, I would not be surprised if it is intentional. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
