RE: WIN32 compilation, the spirit of GNU software.

[James Michael DuPont <mdupont777 yahoo com>]

Rob, 
you are right that it is a big burden on the developer to create
derived works under the GPL according to the rules. That is why they
are ignored. 

You can also drive without a seat belt where it is against the law.
But when you hit a tree, you wish you did not.

My opinion does not really matter at all, now does it?

I just pointed out a problem: I bet Hans realized that there could be a
bit a truth in it, and that is why he did what he did, in my opinion.

You would just ban me from the list and ignore me if you really thought
I was %100 wrong!

But the actions of hans show you the wisdom in keeping your sources
clean. If everyone played by the rules, there would not be this problem
at all.

mike
--- Rob Campbell <rob.campbell@att.net> wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dia-list-admin@gnome.org [mailto:dia-list-admin@gnome.org]On
> Behalf Of James Michael DuPont
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 2:47 AM
> To: dia-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: WIN32 compilation, the spirit of GNU software.
> <<snip>>
> > I am following the instructions and getting all the dependant libs
> > sources installed, from glib, gtk, ilibcon, gettext.
> >
> > These sources should be put on the same server as the binaries is
> what
> > I am saying according to the GPL FAQ.
> 
> Do you realize the implication of what you are saying?  Every site
> for every
> GPL application must host the source code of every library that it
> relies
> on.

This is my interpretation the GPL, and it is a grey area.
Only for parts that are standard. Under windows this can be alot!

>  That would include libraries cover by LGPL, BSD, or any other
> license
> (the GPL, as you interpret it, applies to the GPL'd applciation, not
> the
> libraries it uses).  That's zillions of lines of code that must be
> copied
> and - to be useful - kept up to date.  

If you are based on part of a distribution, then it is something
different.


Also, all of this does not matter until there is a problem, such as
now.
You only have to produce the sources when asked to, according the GPL,
by post if need be. 

My point is that dia has this problem because they are not strict as to
what is acceptable for distribution, this goes all the way back the to
original work from tor. 

The only way to protect the users from the personal whims of one
developer/company is to play by the rules. 
The GPL is harsh, but it rules will protect you in the long run.

> If such a stringent requirement applies to the libraries of a GPL
> application, wouldn't it apply to the application itself?  You
> package and
> distribute a modified version of GCC, yet you provide only the
> patches
> needed to compile it.  Where is the rest of the source?  It's not on
> the
> same server.

That is right, This is one of the reasons that I have taken down the
binaries from my server.  

I have announced that I am rethinking the project. 
The other reason is that I will be removing the XML linkage and
statically linking the perl to the compiler. Dia to VCG as well.

This will make some of the more radical voices in the FSF happy,
who dont like my project at all anyway.

If I don't have the binary, then you dont need the source.
A patch is fine on it's own.

I will be doing a full CVS branch of all the tools that will be
included in the introspector, including DIA, CSCC, GCC and all the
gnome libs needed to build it. 

Anyway, as I said, this is just my opinion, feel free to ignore it.
I will be working on the native DIA port untill it is all done.

Mike

=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com