Re: WIN32 compilation, UML Sequence Diagrams and Inheritance arrows and the spirit of GNU software.

[Alan Horkan <horkana tcd ie>]

> The questions about the GPL that I raised are still valid, and
> I still think that the need distribution of the complete source code is
> a requirement for distributing the executables.

And again this is covered when the GPL says "preffered form".  The
preffered form is whatever Hans uses to build Dia, if Hans does not bother
with DSW files then that is the preffered form and he is not removing
anything or deliberately making things more difficult or obscure which is
what the phrase "preferred form" means.  It does not mean he has to
provide it in a nice easy to use form that you would prefer.
Just dont mention the GPL again on the list. Ask an expert and hopefully
they will explain it even more clearly.  There simpley is not question
that Hans is in compliance with the GPL.

I think Hans has explained that the necessary information

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/dia-list/2002-August/thread.html
Please read the thread again, Hans has given you pointers on where to go
and at this point you dont have much choice but to trudge through the
relevant documenation.

"There is no dsw file in all of gnome cvs. It's just much cleaner
to use handwritten makefile.msc as well as nmake. Beside not
depending on a specific compiler/ide version this is much more
manageable for about 140 gimp plug-ins or about 20 dia modules."

"MSVC 5.0 - 7.0 are tested and work. It should be quite simple if
one reads glib/README.win32"

http://cvs.gnome.org/lxr/source/dia/
http://cvs.gnome.org/lxr/source/dia/readme.win32


This is why the introductory guides warn people to read the documenation
and ask specific questions rather than just fire of emails saying they
cannot get it to work.

Specific problems and error messages allow smart developers who are not
necessarily windows developers to answer your questions.

> In my opinion, The free software movement is based on giving that
> source code, not the executables. If you cannot build the program from

the source code is in cvs.gnome.org
it may be a royal pain in the ass to compile it on windows but that does
not make any difference.

> As far as I know,
> The GNU and GNOME libraries used are not part of the system and have to
> be redistributed as well as part of the source code,

the libraries have to be *available*, neither Hans nor any of the other
developers have to package them all up in one place.
the can be easily found here
http://www.iki.fi/tml/gimp/win32/
as mentioned in the read me
http://cvs.gnome.org/lxr/source/dia/readme.win32
and that more than adequately covers the obligation of the GPL.

> as well as the scripts to build them.

ill repeat what Hans said

"There is no dsw file in all of gnome cvs. It's just much cleaner
to use handwritten makefile.msc as well as nmake."

> I don't think you can just say, "download this prebuilt lib and inc
> from this server, we dont care how it is built".

That is the way it works.  You dont have to build everything from scratch
every time.  The gtk libs are completely seperable form dia.  Dia
happens to use them but they are not a core part of Dia.  Dia uses them as
is, only if Dia had some custom patches to these libraries would it make
sense to build them from scratch.

> I don't think that is the way that the GPL works,

I am sorry but it is how it works and maybe some one at the FSF or Gnu.org
would be willing to explain it further, i have tried the best i can.

> if you get the source code, you have to make it available to others.

While i am being pedantic about this, you dont have to share the source
code unless you distribute the source code.
If i had some brilliant feature X (maybe visio support, im dreaming but
anyway) i dont have to share it with anyone.  But if i do want to share it
with people i have to share the code.
Many companies use Open source programs internally, employees add features
on the company time and payroll.  The company does not have to release
these improvements so long as the dont distribute the software outside
their company.
The purpose of the GPL is to prevent the original developers being
excluded, not to force people to release every change they ever make to
the code (there are other licenses that do try and stipulate ridiculuously
unenforcable clauses like this).

> I might be wrong, and I am willing to change my opinion.
> Again, I am sorry if I have insulted you and caused problems.

I hope this is almost resolved and you can choose your words very
carefully (i am barely managing to be nice at this point).  read the
documentation.  before you reply read carefully what you have written.

Hope that helps

Sincerely
Alan Horkan.