Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2000/12/10/11:44:23
> ?? Are you saying that GPL frowns on releases based on development
> snapshots?
No, the GPL frowns on shipping binaries without sources.
> Where does it say so? Whatever sources were used to build the
> binaries, they would be available as part of the port release, so
> where's the catch?
The catch is that if you use a non-official libc.a, it doesn't qualify
for cvs's GPL's exception. The user has no access to those libc
sources.
> Personally, I don't like the current trend in many packages to let people
> freely access the CVS and use that as an excuse for not having stable
> releases. However, there's an opinion out there, frequently brought up by
> the proponents of the free CVS access, that a project which doesn't allow
> such an access is violating the GPL, or at least its spirit.
The GPL doesn't require you to make your sources available. It only
requires that *if* the binaries are availble, *those* sources are
available also. The "spirit" of the GPL has nothing to do with
forcing people to share things they aren't willing to share, only
about letting people change the things they already have.
It's the "Open Source Movement" that pushes sharing sources. The Free
software movement only pushes freedom, not sharing for its own sake.
> It sounds like you are saying the opposite.
No, it's just a tricky case that needs to be watched out for. If you
use an unofficial copy of djgpp, you need to include djgpp's sources
in the "sources" the GPL talks about. *I* make an exception for
official djgpp sources in non-GPL applications. The GPL doesn't, so
the catch is that *cvs's* GPL requires that you distribute sources to
an unofficial libc if you use it. *Official* libc's are "part of the
os" and qualify for cvs's GPL exception. Unofficial ones don't.
- Raw text -