Re: gcc SRPM

On Feb 25, 2005, at 1:12, John Summerfield wrote:

>
>
> Justin Walker wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 2005, at 16:45, John Summerfield wrote:
[snip]
>> You may be confused; I think the subject is availability of the 
>> source in a particular format (SRPM); I doubt the GNU licences 
>> require a particular format.  In addition, the source is always 
>> available from Apple, as is required (the Open Darwin project is not 
>> Apple).
>
> Perhaps a little confused as to who's responsible, but the point still 
> stands.

No.

> If the binaries are shipped as an RPM, then the package i a derived 
> work and so still covered by the GPL, and the srource RPM is the most 
> sensible packaging

That's just opinion, and doesn't have anything to do with the licensing.

> And if, as I believe, Open Darwin is derived from Apple sources then 
> it's in Apple's interests

Again, not germane to a discussion of license requirements.  If 
OpenDarwin modifies the source, then they need to make it available; 
otherwise not.

Cheers,

Justin

--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large  *
Institute for General Semantics        | Some people have a mental
                                        |  horizon of radius zero, and
                                        |  call it their point of view.
                                        |     -- David Hilbert
*--------------------------------------*-------------------------------*