Re: sources and scripts for generated files

[Jan D.]

Hi.

Andreas Röhler skrev 2014-05-26 10:32:
> On 26.05.2014 07:33, Jan Djärv wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > 26 maj 2014 kl. 04:31 skrev Glenn Morris <address@hidden>:
> >
> > > Does emacs-24 contain all the sources and scripts that are needed
> > > to create any generated files in the tree?
> > >
> > > E.g. do we need to add
> > > http://www.unicode.org/ivd/data/2012-03-02/IVD_Sequences.txt
> > > to admin/mac? It's ~ 1MB, and is used to create src/macuvs.h.
> >
> > IMHO, this is more a legal issue than a practical issue.
> > Say we add the file to Emacs.  There is no point in re-generating
> > src/macuvs.h unless the file changes, and then the one distribiuted
> > with Emacs is not used anyway.
> >
> > But someone with insight to the GPL have to answer this.
> >
> >     Jan D.
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> assume you are kidding.

No, I'm not.

> If not kidding, I'm still wondering, resp. asking: please make the GPL a
> text every Emacs core developer may understand without undergoing
> expensive law-studies.

The GPL says:

"The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for 
making modifications to it."

Is macuvs.h source code?  I would say so.  Is it the form we prefer for 
modifications?  Maybe, maybe not.  But then again, why would we make 
modifications to the underlying Unicode document?  We can make 
modifications to the code that generates macuvs.h, thus we are able to 
make modifications in the "preferred form" IMHO.

You think all people agree in the interpretation of this case, simple as 
it may be?  Then you are kidding yourself.  That is why this is a legal 
question.


> Not to hide my personal view: of course there is no legal question. GPL
> requires the sources of built executable to be shipped, but not the
> stuff mayby useful for writing the sources.

First you say there is no legal question.  Then you cite a legal 
document making a legal requirement, thus underlying the fact that this 
*IS* a legal question.  Note that GPL does nowhere mentions "writing 
sources", it just mentions preferred form.  So your view is just an 
interpretation for which I can find no basis for in the GPL.

That does not say it is wrong, just that it is not clear-cut.

        Jan D.