3 Aug
2009
3 Aug
'09
9:55 a.m.
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