Re: Reproducible, precompiled .o files: what say policy+gpl?
I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > it says "the package in main must be buildable with tools in main".
> > That is still the case. The fact that the package in main is built using
> > non-free tools is irrelevant -- it can be rebuilt using software only in
> > main; it can be ran using software only in main; and the difference is
> > not noticeable except by comparing checksums, benchmarks, or to those
> > with an intimate knowledge in compiler optimizers.
> > A difference in optimization is not relevant to a package's freedom.
> If compiling the program with a non-free compiler gains you users who would
> not find the package usable otherwise, distributing binaries built with
> such a compiler induces your users to be dependant (indirectly) on non-free
> software. That is a freedom issue.
I tend to agree with Wouter on this issue. The source can compile with
gcc. Anyone with the sources, and gcc can rebuild the package and It
Works. No difference in functionality, merely a difference in
Note the exact words (I am assuming that Glenn copied them verbatim):
the package in main must be buildable with tools in main
Note what it does not say:
the package in main must have been built only with tools in main
This package is buildable by tools in main. It meets the letter of the
law. The spirit seems a bit ambiguous. Good case in point, the m68k
cross-compiled stuff, where the cross-compiler used was non-free. (I
have not verified the accuracy of the non-free claim of the cross-
Also, this discussion is academic as the maintainer is going to split
the package into two: gcc build in main, and icc built in contrib. Given
the circumstance, I felt that this action is the best.
We could fork this into a discussion of re-building all packages
uploaded (ala source only uploads) which neatly sidesteps the entire
``intent of buildable with tools in main'' issue entirely.
John H. Robinson, IV email@example.com
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html ((((