Re: Running Octave from Fink?
Alexander Hansen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.apple.fink.core,gmane.comp.gnu.octave.general |
|---|---|
| Organization | Fink Core Team |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 11/8/12 1:11 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > >> I'm CCing current GNU president Richard Stallman. He might like to >> comment further on these issues. > > >> The distinction between the operating system and the libraries is made >> in the GPL. The GPL allows you to build, run, and distribute the >> software in a hostile operating system, but does not extend this >> permission to non-free libraries. Such proprietary glue sometimes >> falls under the system library exception, but this depends on the >> manner in which it's distributed (the precise GPLese is libraries that >> are "in the normal form of packaging a Major Component"). >> >> So Fink is doing binary distribution for Octave, AIUI, but it's also >> linking to proprietary libraries that do not fall under the system >> library exception? I am not sure if this is the current situation, but >> I find it troubling. >> > > Absolutely not. Fink goes to great lengths to make sure that the software it builds does not accidentally > link to libraries which were not specified in the package description. In particular, GPL-licensed software > built with Fink won't link to non-GPL-licensed software if the package description has been written correctly. > (We occasionally find erroneous package descriptions but we fix them quickly.) > > Also, note that Fink does not currently do a binary distribution of anything, due to a lack of manpower and > appropriate automated tools to create a binary distribution we can vouch for. > > Fink downloads source code, and uses the Apple-supplied build tools to build and link that source code. Every > Fink user compiles their own software. > > The issue for you, as I understand it, is that one has to make an additional download of the build tools, and > accept a license specific to them, beyond the non-free license one has already accepted as a user of OS X. > I don't know the difference between those licenses, but I'm not sure that it matters: the totality of the host > system is non-free. > > (Note one crucial feature here is that OS X does not come with a compiler of any kind by default. At one time, > there were several alternative compilers that one could acquire, but these days I believe Apple's is the only one.) > > I agree that it is not an ideal situation that the build tools themselves are not free. > > -- Dave > > > And there's certainly nothing stopping an interested entity from forking Fink to attempt to use a free build chain, if there's a standalone one for OS X still out there somewhere. Though some packages definitely won't build, because they rely on Xcode-specific behaviors. -- Alexander Hansen, Ph.D. Fink User Liaison My package updates: http://finkakh.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_nov _______________________________________________ fink-core mailing list [email protected] List archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.core Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-core