[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reproducible, precompiled .o files: what say policy+gpl?

Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> If you still insist, consider this: If I would know i386 assembler
>> (which I don't), I could theoretically hand-optimize software before I
>> upload it. Since I did hand-optimization, the resulting binary would no
>> longer be built using only Free Software; it would also incorporate the
>> fruit of my labour. Is the resulting binary now suddenly non-free -- or,
>> at least, should it go to contrib instead of main? If so, why? If not,
>> what's the difference between this example, and the question of
>> icc-built software?
> Wouldn't the resulting Binary be non-free, as it no longer comes with
> the complete source (the 'preferred form for modification', as the GPL
> puts it)? Your hand-optimised assembler code is now part of the source,
> and if you don't provide the assembler source, the source is not complete.

That's correct: in order to satisfy your obligations under the GPL, you
would need to provide the hand-optimized assembler code.

(It is possible, of course, that Wouter is suggesting direct
modification of the machine code; if that is indeed your preferred form
for modification, then providing it is sufficient.  I seriously doubt
that is a common occurance, and at a minimum it should be clearly
documented if it is the case.)

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: