On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:22:04PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:50:23AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > As a sidestep, I think this target may actually be legally required for > > GPL (at least 2 and 3) licenced code. They say > > > > 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. > > (version 2), and > > The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means > > all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an > > executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, > > including scripts to control those activities. > > (version 3). > > > > In other words, build rules to generate the binary from source must be > > present. > > The GPL does not require us to build anything. Just that the source > are available. Yes. But in "source" any scripts needed to build it are included. So having a debian/rules target which can generate configure, and not running it, is fine. Not having it is a violation of the license AFAICS. > I would also like to point out this exception from the autoconf license: This is about configure itself. It means that autoconf may be used to generate a configure for a non-GPL project. It doesn't mean that using autoconf is a way to avoid having to follow the GPL on a project's source. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature