[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sources and scripts for generated files
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: sources and scripts for generated files |
Date: |
Mon, 26 May 2014 11:43:28 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> Andreas Röhler writes:
>
> > assume you are kidding.
>
> No, he's not. GPL "sources" are defined as the preferred form for
> editing if you wish to make changes to the software. If the .h file
> is as easy to edit as the other, it might be the preferred form for
> local changes (or at least acceptable). On the other hand, it's
> converted by an automatic process *and* the script that does so is
> part of Emacs (AIUI). So there's a strong presumption that the file
> from ICU is the source.
>
> > 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.
>
> That cannot be done; the GPL's primary purpose is to protect various
> interests in the covered Work, and readability to non-lawyers takes a
> back seat to that.
>
> But this part is not hard to understand.
>
> (1) You must provide sources that are reasonably convenient to edit.
No, the preferred form for modification. If there is an upstream
document from which the sources are generated _and_ this upstream
document is not one-of-its-kind (meaning that there will never be
updated documents in the same format), then obviously the upstream is
the preferred form for modifications. Because then rerunning the
harvesting script is a proper part of maintenance, and then changes to
the generated document would get overwritten.
--
David Kastrup
Re: sources and scripts for generated files, Paul Eggert, 2014/05/26
Re: sources and scripts for generated files, Stefan Monnier, 2014/05/26