Re: [fink-core] Running Octave from Fink?

[Alexander Hansen]

On 11/9/12 5:02 PM, edmund ronald wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Alexander Hansen
> <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> 
>     On 11/9/12 3:39 PM, edmund ronald wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Alexander Hansen
>     > <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
>     <mailto:address@hidden
>     <mailto:address@hidden>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     On 11/9/12 12:38 PM, edmund ronald wrote:
>     >     > This discussion started with Gnu Octave. Octave is an
>     interpreter, so
>     >     > there are no downstream products.
>     >
>     >     Not quite true.  Octave also has headers and libraries, and
>     people can
>     >     write utilities that build against those, and any distribution
>     would
>     >     necessarily involve Octave's license.
>     >
>     >     In what way can Apple's shenanigans on
>     >     > OS X create issues for users here? They are executing their code
>     >     on the
>     >     > same non-free machine it was compiled on, and they have
>     already agreed
>     >     > to said non-free environment.
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I agree there is an issue, but OS X seems to be a poisoned well anyway
>     > from the point of view of free software; I don't think any reasonable
>     > amount of precautions could work against the world's most litigious
>     > company. So maybe a warning is what is really required - I would
>     suggest
>     > "by abiding by the terms of the Xcode license you are violating
>     the GPL
>     > ***if you redistribute any results of the compilation***, and your
>     > license to Octave would be cancelled. And maybe this is exactly
>     what the
>     > bright legal minds at Apple want.
>     >
>     > Edmund
>     >
>     >
> 
>     And how does one do this?
> 
>     In _Fink_ we use compiler wrapper scripts so that perhaps we can annoy
>     our users with having this warning pop up every single time they try to
>     build a GPL'ed package.  Well, since the "fink" tool is itself GPLv2,
>     maybe we'd have to do it for every operation--or we could switch
>     licenses.
> 
>     But if users are building stuff by hand, then they're not going to see
>     any such warning unless every GPL'ed package encodes a compiler
>     detection step.
>     --
>     Alexander Hansen, Ph.D.
>     Fink User Liaison
>     My package updates: http://finkakh.wordpress.com/
> 
> 
> If you actually take my remark seriously, and take this stuff seriously,
> then I think RMS himself should have my reasoning checked through, and
> then the  license of Fink needs to be modified suitably. This is an arms
> race between adverse viewpoints on software property, and I guess the
> GPL4 or whatever would need to be modified to prevent behavior like
> Apple's on a system that bundles free software, and then Apple would
> find another trick, ad nauseam.
> 
> Edmund
> 

I don't.

We're not violating any licenses, to the best of our knowledge, since we
don't link to anything which comes from non-free sources other than what
comes with the system.

If packages are specifically licensed not to be allowed on OS X, then we
won't distribute them.
-- 
Alexander Hansen, Ph.D.
Fink User Liaison
My package updates: http://finkakh.wordpress.com/