Rex Dieter wrote:
If the GPL doesn't cover this case, then I have to say that the GPL isAbuse is what the GPL is supposed to prevent, I aggree.
weaker than I thought... and could be abused.
The thing to remember here is that the original copyright holder is a special case.
The wording we're disscussing I think is designed to stop someone who recieves the GPL sources (and possibly makes changes) from then removing the build script from the package in order to make it harder for it's customers to take advantage of the rights granted by the GPL.
As I stated earlier, In the case of the original author, there's no logicla reason that an author would leave out the build scripts. At least I can't think of one, if they don't want the customers to take advantage of the GPL rights, then why are they using the GPL as the license for this code?
I would suggest that if they have a build script they would include it, but On the other hand, if they don't have one already, and dont' use one, I'm not sure if the GPL requires them to make one. The webpage that offers the down load could just say:
> > Run this to build: > > gcc -o foobar -I ./include *.c >
Or something similiar as instructions. Also, if it's really that easy, then I think it could be left as a 'given'.
I really think that the text of the license is intended to ensure that eveything the original author distributed is propagated, and that nothing is lost.
There are many cases in other Open source software where the sources that are release, no matter how they are built, do not produce the same programs as the binaries that are distributed. This is the major type of abuse the GPL is trying to protect us from.
-Kyle _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [email protected] To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
