Re: Possible GPL violation in package distribution
-- James LewisMoss <jimdres(a)mindspring.com> spake thusly:
And anyway, the GPL says:
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source
code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
installation of the executable.
I think .elc files qualify as executable work, and even if they don't,
this paragraph gives enough indication of the spirit of the licence
that it makes clear that some sort of Makefile has to be provided.
So I see this as a GPL violation, and upstream authors should be made
aware of this problem. I suppose people on -legal can confirm or
inform my analysis.
My understanding is that the complete source code must be made
available, not "must be made available in the upstream source for the
xemacs21-basesupport-el-*.deb".
Since it's possible to download the source tarball for the sumo
package, how would this be a GPL violation? The GPL doesn't say it has
to be easy or obvious, just that it has to be available. And since
xemacs.org has everything available, if it _is_ a problem it sounds
like debian's problem.
But as Hrovje says, you can always use 'byte-recompile-directory'.
Attachments:
- attachment.sig (application/pgp-signature — 232 bytes)