[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: sources and scripts for generated files

From: Jan D.
Subject: Re: sources and scripts for generated files
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 11:10:40 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0


Andreas Röhler skrev 2014-05-26 10:32:
On 26.05.2014 07:33, Jan Djärv wrote:

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
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.

reply via email to

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