On Monday 03 August 2009 01:39:14 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > "Sometimes, the process of installation is not facilitated by scripts, > but by some other means (such as executable programs). The GPL text only > mentions the word "scripts". But when reading and interpreting the > license, it is clearly understood that the license doesn't specifically > only mean "scripts", but any kind of software programs that are required > to install a (modified) version of the compiled program." > (http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html)
This I disagree with. The wording in the GPL is not as they are interpreting it. It is impossible to include every piece of software to create installable executables, that is why the wording in the GPL does not mention them. It would nice if everyone did that, in some cases these parts are feasible to include, other times they are too unwieldy or have license that disallow it. On some Linux distros RPM is used as the package manager. People on Windows do not have RPM, so they can never build an RPM without Linux (AFAIK). On Mac the usual way to install is by .dmg (Disk Image). This is an Apple specific format. Not available on Linux, Windows, etc. You need a Mac. Likewise, except for a few exceptional programs, you cannot build an .exe on Linux or Mac. It may be improper practice or plain just not in the spirit of FOSS, but you can use whatever program you want to build the installables. Just put the scripts used to do that with the source distribution so there is at least a remote chance that someone getting the package could use them. The point is not to obsolete a modified version before it has a chance to make improvements, as much as possible. > > "How can I verify that my source code release is complete? > > This is quite easy. If you only use source code provided in that > release, and you can use this source code to produce a working form of > the executable code, then the source code release seems complete. > > If the build process fails, or you end up with a non-working executable, > or you have no way to install the resulting executable, then clearly > something is missing." (http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html) Thus, if there is a working version available and you get the source but it won't compile, then the distributor is at fault for not providing a proper script to build it. They managed to build it, but now the code for it won't build. At that point the problem is either deliberate or a sign of incompetence. Due diligence on the part of the distributor before they ever distribute anything cures most problems before they arise. A little patience up front to check their work before the release goes a long way to avoiding problems. A major problem is that people too often have a flagrantly loose attitude about the whole matter. Very sloppy approach. The license is an afterthought. No, the license is number 1 (when it comes to distribution). If you keep your software to yourself then the license is at the bottom of the list. Priorities have to change if you ever release it to the general public. This is where the issue comes up. Raymond _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
