Re: Possible GPL violation in package distribution

Justin> At 3:47 AM +0900 2/24/01, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Justin> The same argument could be applied to binary packages of Justin> GPL software. For most of the rpms that I install, I only Justin> have binary code. There is no source code, or Makefiles, Justin> or anything. I do not see that as a violation of the GPL. Justin> You don't need to package gcc with xemacs, just say that Justin> you need a compiler. You're missing the point I was trying to make. Of course the basic answer is "if you can run the Lisp, you have XEmacs, and you can build the package with byte-compile-file." As I read the post attached to Jim's message, however, the poster wanted the apparatus we use to build packages to make sure that the locally built package was identical in functionality to the distributed one. The GPL _does_ require that you make any patches available for three years. Now, much of the code in a .elc is actually inline-expanded by the byte compiler. Recently there was a bug fix to the byte compiler which changed the inline code, requiring a rebuild of every package. We have no way of tracking that, but the letter of the GPL probably requires us to do so if we distribute .elcs. (This doesn't apply to GCC on Linux, because it's part of the system.) And it certainly requires Debian to keep its .diff.gzs if they change the upstream code. (I'm pretty sure the contents of the debian/ directory are "merely aggregated.") [Aside: I find the GPL very problematic as a foundation for Linux- style distribution. It is extremely vague on the subject of binary distribution. It is much better suited to BSD-style "ports" or "packages" distribution.] -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."