Re: Meaning of `source code'
On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 22:51:00 PST Bruce Perens (bruce@pixar.com) wrote:
> From: Philippe Troin <phil@fifi.org>
> > Well, the question is, is smalleiffel capable of compiling itself ?
> > If yes, then they're no problem. Even if the preffered form for making
> > modifications to it is the Eiffel source, and you just have the C source
> > to bootstrap it, it should be ok.
>
> I think you've read the GPL incorrectly. He can be distributed the
> intermediate
> C code for use in bootstrapping the compiler, but he then has the right to ask
> for the Eiffel source code in machine-readable form.
No, I read the GPL almost correctly ("almost" because I don't speak
lawyerese), but I assumed (wrongly) smalleiffel with the C-code for
bootstrapping purposes as well as the eiffel code.
> > This is almost like saying that GCC is not DFSG-compliant because you need
> > an other C-compiler to compile it (at least the first time, for
> > bootstrapping).
>
> The chicken-or-egg problem is irrelevant. The DFSG asks that all components
> be build-able under Debian's free software components, but says nothing about
> the way these programs were first bootstrapped.
Absolutely.
So now, smalleiffel seems to be DFSG-compliant (in the text, we say "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source
code as well as compiled form." In the spirit, this is completely wrong
and smalleiffel belongs to non-free I think.
Maybe we should enhance the DFSG to specify that the source code we want
musn't intermediate source code (that is we don't accept assembler nor
eiffel-generated C-code).
Phil.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: