Re: Trolltech GPL violation?
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 09:58:17PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 01:50:54AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > The "source code" for the documentation is embedded as comments in the
> > > > program source code, in a doxygen-like way.
> > > >
> > > > Trolltech has not, to my knowledge, released the tool they use to
> > > > generate the HTML from the comments.
> > >
> > > Then we do indeed have (yet again) a non-redistributable Qt bundle -
> > > the GPL explicitly includes such tools as 'source', with the singular
> > > exception that it doesn't include things normally shipped with the
> > > operating system (like generic compilers).
> > The GPL says:
> > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> > making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
> > code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
> > associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> > control compilation and installation of the executable."
> > (If there's some other rationale for "the GPL explicitly includes such tools
> > as 'source'", I missed it.)
> I was referencing the ^^^ed part. That sentence reads to me as 'the
> build system', and such a tool smells like part of the build system.
The ^^^ed part only mentions "the executable", not "the work" or "the
documentation". Perhaps this is a drafting error that does not
reflect the FSF's intention, but it is the language of the license.
However, given the FSF's distinction between free documentation and
free software, I would not be surprised if it is intentional.