Rex Dieter wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Kyle McDonald wrote:
If they were *only* providing tarball binaries, this would be true. However, in the case of binary rpms, the "preferred" form the Source Code (as defined by the GPL) is clearly either a src.rpm or the (already-provided) tar-file + rpm specfile.That's your 'prefferred form'. There's nothing in there that defines the preffered form. And 'available for download off the internet in any acceptable file format' is probably about as specific a consensus as you'll get the public to aggree too for a preffered form.
Well, "preferred form" and "scripts used to generate the binaries" both apply. In the case of binary rpms, a specfile is used to generate them. I find it difficult to interpret it any other way.
If they provide *anything* the will generate the *binaries* themselves they are in compliance. No-one is required to allow you to reproduce the RPM itself.
Also lets say that being able ot regenerate the RPM itself was a requirement. There are other ways that a build script or Makefile which was included with the sources could also generate the RPM, and that would meet that requirement, and still wouldn't be a specfile.
A specfile is a convience. Not a requirement. Automating the RPM building also is a convience and a bonus, Not a requirement.
Unless you have pointers to statements from RMS or the FSF that say otherwise?
If so then they're even more crazy, and dictatorial, than I thought.
-Kyle _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [email protected] To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
