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

[Sergei Steshenko]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Alexander Hansen <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden; 
> address@hidden
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [fink-core] Running Octave from Fink?
> 
> On 11/10/12 11:26 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>      This discussion started with Gnu Octave. Octave is an interpreter, so 
> there
>>      are no downstream products. 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.
>> 
>>  We cannot allow people to add nonfree code to GPL-covered programs.
>>  If that were allowed, people could release nonfree code to extend
>>  GPL-covered programs, which is tantamount to making nonfree extended
>>  versions of them.
>> 
>>  I designed the system library exception carefully to avoid opening up
>>  that danger.
>> 
>>  That the code runs on a nonfree platform is no excuse for respecting
>>  the users' freedom less.  The system library exception is meant to
>>  cover the code that belongs to the system itself.  If we allowed
>>  anything more, could we distinguish it from an arbitrary proprietary
>>  add-on?
>> 
>>  I have not finished reading all the mail you've sent, because it is
>>  too much!  So I don't know how these points apply to the current
>>  situation, and I don't have any conclusion to state about this case.
>> 
> 
> Executive summary:
> 
> 1) The Xcode development tools package, whatever you think of its
> license, installs compiler executables, since none come with the OS,
> other executables useful to developers which don't come with the OS, and
> headers.
> (I _did_ find some libraries, but they are specifically for svn, which
> comes with Xcode rather than being part of the OS.  We aren't talking
> about Octave linking to those--which would indeed be a problem)
> 
> 2) The proprietary libraries that are linked by one of the OS X source
> packaging tools ship as part of the OS, and are installed by default.
> They're standard components.  No additional proprietary runtime
> component is required.  And we always strive to make sure that packages
> are compliant with the various licenses we work with, even when the
> upstream developers seem not to get it:  for example, gnuplot is
> manifestly not GPL-compatible, yet its build defaults to using GNU
> readline if present, so I explicitly make it avoid using GNU readline as
> distributed in Fink.
> 
> 3) All of the various distributions discussed--Fink, Homebrew, and
> Macports--are source-based.  In fact, for Fink on OS 10.6 and later,
> users only start with Xcode and source scripts, and there is _no_ binary
> component.  And we make them install Xcode because they need _something_
> to start with to build packages.
> 3A) Nobody seems to know of a fully libre self-consistent build toolset
> for current OS X, so we're not insisting on Xcode to be (unpaid) Apple
> shills.
> 3B) If such a toolset did in fact exist, even if the Fink Project didn't
> switch to use it because we build a wide range of packages, including
> some that require access to Apple's proprietary libraries and therefore
> need Xcode to build, our code and package build prescriptions are free
> for anybody to examine, make a fork from, make change requests upon, etc...
> 
> So basically, we're trying to do as right by everybody as circumstances
> permit.  Barring somebody presenting us with a build tool solution that
> will do the job, we're left with only the Xcode option.
> --
> Alexander Hansen, Ph.D.
> Fink User Liaison
> My package updates: http://finkakh.wordpress.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Help-octave mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave


"All of the various distributions discussed--Fink, Homebrew, and
Macports--are source-based" - enough said.

_No_ distribution, building on site. Since no distribution, no GPL violation.

And, as I wrote earlier, _no_ issue.

Regards,
  Sergei.


>