2 Aug
2009
2 Aug
'09
5:36 p.m.
keller wrote:
On Aug 2, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
can we please bury this urban myth that anybody who releases software
under the gpl is legally bound to include makefiles and such?
surely everybody has read this statement?:
"THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS"
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND
PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU."
(the yelling is not mine, but i think i would have added it if the
original were lowercase)
listening to some gpl zealots here, every project with broken makefiles
is in violation of the gpl. that is most certainly not the case.
if i decide to toss out a bunch of files under the gpl, it's not my
responsibility to make them usable to you. it's a best effort thing -
how would you react if someone got on your nerves because your pet
project doesn't build on their sparc32/solaris because of some autotools
problem? you would tell them, go fixit yourself. and rightfully so.
so please, if you miss an ant file for a gift horse, write yourself one!
As it's not particularly difficult to include the build scripts in the
public repo it does appear that Bob is playing a game of cat and mouse
in this case.
That seems rather callous to me, Patrick. I am trying my best, in the
face of people constantly yelling at me. You seem to take the claims
that others make directly, without asking me first for clarification. A
little calmness and courtesy would contribute immensely to the situation.
There are no "other scripts". The only thing missing is the nbproject
directory, which I am trying to force in, as I said.