octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Successful compilation with MinGW


From: Andy Adler
Subject: Re: Successful compilation with MinGW
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:01:28 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, James R. Phillips wrote:

> --- Shai Ayal  wrote:
>
> > This is surprising!
> >
> > So, Andy, would it be safe to say that providing an octave installer
> > for windows is only a "time" problem -- i.e. someone would have to
> > invest the time but there are no "technological" problems? would the
> > following procedure work?
> >
> > 1. get current octave & octave-forge precompiled cygwin packages and
> > dependencies
> > 2. get current cygwin1.dll and binary edit it to replace "Cygnus
> > Solutions" as the registry key.
>
> OK, step 2 here is problematic.  First, if you distribute cygwin1.dll, you 
> must
> also distribute the source (gpl requirement).  If the binary does not
> correspond to the source, then you haven't met the requirement.  A binary diff
> is probably not acceptable either.  I think it would be necessary to patch the
> source, and build the binary from that.

I would argue that this is unnecessarily pedantic.

The issue at stake is probably the quote from section 3.
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of
 the work for making modifications to it."

However, in this case we have the source; and we have the
instructions for the binary patch. This is the preferred form,
in the sense that it is the one I chose to do because it was
the easiest.

If I distribute software and provide to the recipient exactly
the pieces and recipe that I used to build - and modify -
the binary, then I'm believe that I have complied with the GPL.

To argue the opposite puts one is a paradoxical situation.
The GPL is actually decreasing freedom by preventing
certain useful coding practices.

--
Andy Adler <address@hidden> 1(613)562-5800x6218



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]