Re: [Easytag-mailing] EasyTAG for the Mac

[MaSch <masch82 gmail com>]

On 9/3/12 1:47 AM, Kip Warner wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-09-02 at 15:41 +0200, MaSch wrote:
>> However I noticed that the changelog already mentions release 2.1.8
>> while autoconf and alike still all say 2.1.7 - is 2.1.8 already frozen ?
>> At least it isn't released as it isn't available on the download page ? ....
> 
> Hey Marco. In mainline you'll see AC_INIT(easytag, 2.1.8) in
> configure.in. You might be looking at Sanntu's branch which, Gtk+ 3
> patching aside, is older.
> 

On 9/3/12 10:07 AM, Santtu Lakkala wrote:
>
> Just merged sf.net master to my branch, so it should be up-to-date
> now, I'll try to keep up periodically now.

Excellent thanks to you both. I forked Santtu's repository and
incorporated my changes. It works well so far for me. All changes should
be mac only and not affect linux or win32, because I wrapped them with
according ifdefs and some autoconf magic.
I also compiled my changes on ubuntu, to check I didn't brake anything
and it works without a problem.

I would be glad if you or the appropriate people could review my changes
and if everything is worked out merge them into the main branch.
Feel free to ask any questions or propose any improvements. I'm usually
not a C/gtk+ programmer and may have made a mistake that the compiler
and I didn't catch.

The code can be found here :
https://github.com/masch82/easytag

If that's convenient I propose to discuss the code with the github
discussion features and the rest on this list / via mail.

On 9/3/12 1:47 AM, Kip Warner wrote:
>> However I think if I distribute binary libs in the package - I'm obliged to
>> also distribute the source with it, e.g. on a webpage at the time of
>> download - or in the package - or a written offer ... to be able to
>> receive the source code from me with physical distribution (an offer
>> which I don't want to make).
>> Most people don't take the license that seriously, you see a lot of
>> binary gtk libs bundled with programs in a package (for windows and osx)
>> and no direct sources provided with the package - but I do.
> 
> You don't need to provide the source with it or even provide physical
> distribution for it. You just need to direct your user's attention to
> the upstream locations for those libraries.
> 
You are right. Kind of ... And that was not exactly how I meant it.
The GPL FAQ says :
  Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source
  on a different Internet site?
    The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code “from the
    same place”; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make
    arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code
    available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code
    next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as “from the same
    place”.
    Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens
    to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to
    look there.
    Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply
    replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you
    would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a
    reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive
    arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source
    will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries
    available.
Beeing a bit nit-picky - directing the users attention to the upstream
locations for the libraries is not enough in this legalese understanding
(as far as I understand this). You have to make a "positive arrangement
with the other site ..." - I mean ok, almost nobody does that, and given
the fact that e.g. gtk.org provides the sources for all gtk releases on
their server and has done that for the past 14 years ? it may be
reasonable to assume that this will be the case in the future and assume
such an agreement would be implicit. However it is not guarenteed.

But I am no lawyer and I'm not sure what would/could/can be assumed. So
I have decided for myself, that if I distribute the complete binary
package with the libs - I provide the source for all the GPL libs
contained in the package as long as I distribute the binary package.
So if the EasyTAG team wants to distribute my binary distribution, which
I would welcome very much, I would propose to simply distribute the GPL
libs with it, e.g. in some sf.net download folder.


>> hmm I have no idea of the internals and the website structure provided
>> by sourceforge - aren't it probably some .php or .html files that can be
>> modified in an editor and then uploaded per ftp ?
> 
> Do you mean this page?
> 
>   <http://easytag.sourceforge.net/>
Yes I did - perhaps that was a misunderstanding ?


Regards Marco