Rex Dieter wrote:
Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
I think the most userfriendly way to handle this is a special page saying where
the sources are. ...
IMHO it is a weakness in the GPL not requiring this. (If I am wrong then please point me to the exact part of the GPL that requires this.)
There's lots of info on that in the GPL FAQ, but this seems to be most
relavent:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCSourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites
Yes, that is also what I found. Since in my case the sources are on the
same site I believe it is ok.
BTW there is a much, much bigger defiency in the GPL in that it does not
require that working instructions for compiling the sources should
distributed with the sources (or at least a link to such instructions).
GPL says the scripts, etc... used to generate the binaries is considered
part of the "source" requirements, which kinda-sorta handles that case:
"...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. "
Thanks, that is interesting. I had not seen that part.
It has been bothering me for a long time. In the case of Emacs this part
is covered well I think (and I have added some scripts on my site to
build from CVS). However for the other tools it is less obvious that
this part of the GPL is followed.
I do not want to point to some weaknesses, because I know there is a lot
of personal effort and good will layed down. But it would in my opinion
be good if this part were stressed more explicitly in the GPL (or in the
FAQ perhaps). IMO there should be scripts covering the build process as
far as possible and clearly written instructions to cover the missing
parts. (Like where to download additional needed tools etc.)
