[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Alexander Hansen
Subject: Re: [fink-core] Running Octave from Fink?
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:50:10 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2

On 11/9/12 9:16 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 8 November 2012 21:53, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
>> You seem to be saying there is no issue.  Maybe so, but I can't
>> tell from that.
>> Would those who DO believe there is an issue like to tell me
>> what the posited issue consists of?
> Hi, Richard. Sorry, I thought you would be able to tell what the
> problem was, but I forgot that you're a busy man and have lots of
> email to read.
> Let me try to summarise: distribution of free programs in Mac OS X is
> frequently done through three distribution methods: Fink, Macports,
> and Homebrew. All of these are essentially source-based distribution
> so the user has to also acquire a compiler in order to do this.
> Although both gcc and clang are available for Mac OS X, their most
> frequent method of distribution is through Xcode, which involves
> making the user accept some very restrictive licensing terms (I
> remember some NDA clauses, forbidding redistribution, and agreeing to
> be spied upon, but I may be misremembering).
> Users of Mac OS X argue that since you're already agreeing to use a
> non-free OS, accepting Apple's terms again just to use a free compiler
> is moot, since you've already given up your freedom, while I feel
> uncomfortable with having to ask Octave users on Mac OS X to again
> submit themselves to Apple's will just so they can install Octave.
> This could be fixed by ensuring that users can get a free distribution
> of gcc on Mac OS X, but there are some great difficulties involved
> therein, and morever, I believe that a majority of free programs
> distributed through Fink, Macports, and Homebrew depend on non-free
> libraries specific to Mac OS X, some of which to me do not seem to
> fall into the GPL's system library exemption.
> - Jordi G. H.
> _______________________________________________

Why would they _not_ fall under the system library exemption?

For clarification:  I have mentioned "Xcode-specific items" and the like
in my correspondence, but I was perhaps being fast and loose in my
terminology.  Headers and other build-time files needed to use the
libraries are included with Xcode, or its command-line tools on current
OS X. However, the corresponding libraries are all included with the OS,
at least to the best of my knowledge.

"Xcode-specific" was intended to cover both the build-time files which
are installed by Xcode, and run-time libraries which are installed as
part of the OS, *but which can't be built against without those
build-time files* .
Alexander Hansen, Ph.D.
Fink User Liaison
My package updates:

reply via email to

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