[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 64 bit official Windows builds
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: 64 bit official Windows builds |
Date: |
Sat, 09 Jan 2016 08:58:30 +0200 |
> From: Arash Esbati <esbati@gmx.de>
> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 22:42:20 +0100
>
> My apologies for the unclear sentence. I meant: I build Emacs on my Win
> 64bit machine with Msys2/MinGW-w64 and have access to the necessary
> DLLs; it would be a pain if I only had bare Emacs binaries and had to
> collect all those DLLs myself somehow.
It's some work, but I wouldn't describe that as "pain". Depends on
how the sites that offer those DLLs are organized and what tools they
offer for downloading and installation.
> > No, this compromise contradicts the GPL. The sources must be
> > available from the same place as the binaries,
>
> Hmm, I read the FAQ differently:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a
> different Internet site? (#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites)
>
> Yes. Section 6(d) allows this. However, you must provide clear
> instructions people can follow to obtain the source, and you must
> take care to make sure that the source remains available for as long
> as you distribute the object code.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> I admit that the "you must take care to make sure that the source
> remains available for as long as you distribute the object code." part
> makes things more complicated, but still ...
Not just "complicated", practically impossible. You have no control
on what another site holds, and for how long. They could decide to
upload a "fixed" archive, which no longer builds for that version of
Emacs, or is no longer compatible to it.
> > because otherwise it isn't practical for the user who wants to rebuild
> > a DLL (e.g., to fix a bug in it or add a feature) of the exact version
> > used to build Emacs. (If she tries to do that with a different
> > version, that version might be incompatible with the specific version
> > of Emacs she uses.) For the same reason, the source distribution
> > found near the binary should be of the exact same version used to
> > produce the binary, and include any changes done by whoever built the
> > binary.
>
> True, from a developer point of view. But not required by GPL if I get
> it correctly.
The GPL gives users and developers the same rights. A user who cannot
by herself change the program can hire someone who can. That someone
will be a developer who will need the exact sources you used.
> Please, don't get me wrong here, I do understand your point. But from a
> user point of view, I think Emacs becomes more attractive on Windows
> if it is provided as a self-contained binary package.
I agree. I'm just saying that providing such a self-contained binary
means more work on the part of the person who provides that. I know
that, because that's what I do when I upload packages to the
ezwinports site -- each binary zip contains all of its dependency
DLLs, and there's always a source zip for each of those dependencies,
in the same directory, or sometimes in the sibling directory. That's
what the GPL requires.
Re: 64 bit official Windows builds, Sam Halliday, 2016/01/09