Fwd: Re: Running Octave from Fink?
Alexander Hansen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.apple.fink.core |
|---|---|
| Organization | Fink Core Team |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Forgot to BCC -core. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [fink-core] Running Octave from Fink? Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:58:29 -0700 From: Alexander Hansen <[email protected]> Organization: Fink Core Team To: edmund ronald <[email protected]> CC: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected] On 11/9/12 5:02 PM, edmund ronald wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Alexander Hansen > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 11/9/12 3:39 PM, edmund ronald wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Alexander Hansen > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > On 11/9/12 12:38 PM, edmund ronald wrote: > > > This discussion started with Gnu Octave. Octave is an > interpreter, so > > > there are no downstream products. > > > > Not quite true. Octave also has headers and libraries, and > people can > > write utilities that build against those, and any distribution > would > > necessarily involve Octave's license. > > > > In what way can Apple's shenanigans on > > > OS X create issues for users here? They are executing their code > > on the > > > same non-free machine it was compiled on, and they have > already agreed > > > to said non-free environment. > > > > > > > > > I agree there is an issue, but OS X seems to be a poisoned well anyway > > from the point of view of free software; I don't think any reasonable > > amount of precautions could work against the world's most litigious > > company. So maybe a warning is what is really required - I would > suggest > > "by abiding by the terms of the Xcode license you are violating > the GPL > > ***if you redistribute any results of the compilation***, and your > > license to Octave would be cancelled. And maybe this is exactly > what the > > bright legal minds at Apple want. > > > > Edmund > > > > > > And how does one do this? > > In _Fink_ we use compiler wrapper scripts so that perhaps we can annoy > our users with having this warning pop up every single time they try to > build a GPL'ed package. Well, since the "fink" tool is itself GPLv2, > maybe we'd have to do it for every operation--or we could switch > licenses. > > But if users are building stuff by hand, then they're not going to see > any such warning unless every GPL'ed package encodes a compiler > detection step. > -- > Alexander Hansen, Ph.D. > Fink User Liaison > My package updates: http://finkakh.wordpress.com/ > > > If you actually take my remark seriously, and take this stuff seriously, > then I think RMS himself should have my reasoning checked through, and > then the license of Fink needs to be modified suitably. This is an arms > race between adverse viewpoints on software property, and I guess the > GPL4 or whatever would need to be modified to prevent behavior like > Apple's on a system that bundles free software, and then Apple would > find another trick, ad nauseam. > > Edmund > I don't. We're not violating any licenses, to the best of our knowledge, since we don't link to anything which comes from non-free sources other than what comes with the system. If packages are specifically licensed not to be allowed on OS X, then we won't distribute them. -- 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