On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 01:02:12AM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002, Ira Abramov wrote about "Re: questions for RMS": > > > * Sometimes, in order to be able to finish modifying software for which > > > you have the source code, you need to be able to prove that your > > > modification has no unintended consequences. Therefore you need access > > > to a regression test suite. > > > In view of the above, should such a regression test suite be > > > considered as "source code" (meaning form in which is the easiest to > > > modify the software) as far as GPL is concerned? If not, why not? > > > > if they are released as part of the tarball of the product source, then > > yes. if they are just tools for development, then their license has > > nothing to do with the license of the code they help create. same as > > using notepad.exe to write GPL code :) > > I don't agree, and I think the original questioner's question was good, > though it can be broadened a bit. > Remember, the GPL isn't just about having the code for free - it's also > about being able to modify it. And for some types of code, you may need > extra things, not just the source code, in order to *modify* (not compile!) > the source code. > > Another example besides the test suites comes to my mind from my recent > involvement in writing a Hebrew spell checker (by the way, expect another > release in two weeks!). > > In that project we could have released only the final word lists used in > the spell checker - not the automated word-inflection programs that were > used to generate them. This will still leave the user with a working, > 100% "free software" spell-checker. But it will not really allow the user > to modify the spell-checker to, for example, check "ktiv chaser", because > that would require systematic changes to the word lists that are too > late to do at that stage. It will also make it very hard for someone to > add more words to the dictionary, basically making the original author > a monopoly in improving the spellchecker. > > So sometimes it's not exactly clear what it means for something to be > "free software". In the hspell project we considered several variations, > and finally decided to go with the "free-est" variation we could think > of, and release *all* files we used to make the word lists, even if the > GPL doesn't strictly require that.
Maybe not strictly, maybe it won't stand in court, but it does say: " The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." (around the middle of it). > [long and interesting discussion snipped] > > > -- > Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Dec 24 2002, 19 Tevet 5763 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] |----------------------------------------- > Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Corduroy pillows - they're making > http://nadav.harel.org.il |headlines! > > ================================================================= > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Didi ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
