Re: Distribution of sources and binaries and the GPL, Again :( (was [Mingw-users] MinGW GCC)

Tor Lillqvist wrote:
 > > Do you realize that there is no separate GLib source package
 > > for Windows. Are you really claiming that LGPL requires source for all
 > > dependent libraries that might not be present on some operating system
 > > to be included in the source packages?

Earnie Boyd writes:
 > Yes, really.

 > If you claim to be able to build using MSVC but you require a special
 > tool, then yes you need to supply that special tool to distribute the
 > source.

As I said, there is no separately distributed GLib source package that
would be indicated as being especially for Windows. If you are
correct, this the applies to the official glib-2.x.x.tar.gz tarballs
on and all its mirrors.

What do the main GLib developers think? Does it seem reasonable to you
to have to include libintl, libiconv and heaven knows what else in the
GLib source tarballs? Please note that he is specifically talking
about GLib source packages. Taken to its logical conclusion, I would
say that Earnie's claims mean that for any operating system version
where somebody claims to have been able to build GLib, all tools not
included by the vendor on that platform would need to be included in
the source tarballs.

 > James Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, please.  I must now go reread
 > the GPL ...

I would say that the LGPL interpretation of the GLib copyright holders
is more important.


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