Re: Status of Privoxy for iOS (and, in time, for Android)

Thanks Fabian,

I've researched the point you brought up and come the the following  
understanding. Since iPhone uses the standard ARM architecture,  
cross-compilation involves just gcc with the appropriate destination  
architecture switch. Since gcc is freely available and a standard  
component of any developer's setup (even if not supplied as part of the  
OS), from all the reading I've done all I need do is make clear which  
/version/ of gcc I used to build the binary and GPLv2 is satisfied; I  
would need to supply the toolchain source only if it included elements  
whose source was not already freely available and GPLv2-licensed.

I'll modify the documentation to satisfy the above and then publish the  
iPhone binary on Sourceforge.


Many thanks for your diligence Fabian,

Ian




On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 08:03:27 -0400, Fabian Keil <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Ian Silvester" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:40:18 -0400, Fabian Keil <[email protected]>  
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "Ian Silvester" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've recently moved from an iPhone to an Android phone so do not  
>> intend
>> >> to
>> >> continue development of the Privoxy for iPhone release building  
>> module
>> >> (iOSPackageBuilder). Here is the current status of the project:
>> >>
>> > [...]
>> >>
>> >> I would like to add the work in progress to CVS just in case someone
>> >> else
>> >> takes up the baton down the line, and even think it worth publishing  
>> the
>> >> installer for download from Sourceforge (once the documentation has  
>> been
>> >> updated with relevant installation instructions for iOS). Given the
>> >> status
>> >> described above, what do you all feel about this?
>> >
>> > Putting the work in progress into CVS seems reasonable to me.
>>
>> Thanks Fabian, will get onto it.
>>
>> > If distributing the installer binary doesn't violate the GPLv2
>> > (I didn't check), uploading it makes sense to me as well.
>>
>> I'm always a bit ignorant on the licensing front, but since the  
>> installer
>> is just a zip file how might that be more of a licensing concern than,
>> say, Apple's .pkg format as used on OS X? The only binary being
>> distributed is Privoxy compiled for ARM - is that your concern? As ever,
>> apologies if I'm missing a wider issue (I often do where GPL is
>> concerned!).
>
> The packaging format indeed shouldn't matter, but if you cross-compile
> from OS X to iOS using a proprietary build environment the special
> exception from § 3 GPLv2 probably doesn't apply anymore:
>
> | The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> | making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
> | code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
> | associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> | control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
> | special exception, the source code distributed need not include
> | anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
> | form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> | operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
> | itself accompanies the executable.
>
> I'm not familiar enough with building binaries for iOS to decide whether
> or not that's really a problem, though. If you come (or already came)
> to the conclusion that it isn't, that's fine with me.
>
> Fabian


-- 
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from 
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk