On Jul 15, 12 14:55:09 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Prove to me it is the source.
For each and every RPM you grab from the Build Service, you can get the exact and complete corresponding source. The bottom half of http://en.opensuse.org/Source_code#Exact_source_code has the simple commands to do that. The build service may have weaknesses, as any large software that is under active development. But this feature alone justifies to say that it is a tool that helps GPL compliance. We put a lot of effort into this feature, and provide all the storage capacity for this. I'd count that as a hint that openSUSE strives for GPL compliance. You attempt to prove a different intent by carefully chosen examples. I don't think it works like that.
Prove to me that if you go out of business I can still build it.
This obviously cannot be proven, unless you define a guaranteed environment on your side (skill set, patience, hardware, and many more resorces). We don't attempt the proof. Instead we provide information, documentation, help, and active guidance, until we see that (some) people can reproduce our build results.
if you can't do that, then you haven't given't me the complete source necessary to build the product. ... or we have found one of the other reasons, why a build might fail. A build does not automatically succeed, once all the sources are there.
Sources doesn't just mean the lines of the source code for the .exe.
I know. Let me refer to on of the documents published by the SFLC. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html It discusses the effort in detail, and summarizes like this: ... you must include “scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable” and/or anything “needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities”. These phrases are written to cover different types of build environments and systems. Therefore, the details of what you need to provide with regard to scripts and installation instructions vary depending on the software details. You must provide all information necessary such that someone generally skilled with computer systems could produce a binary similar to the one provided. This is called a 'A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance'. A more theoretical guide might ask to include all libraries and compilers. My understanding here is that a complete depependency tree is not needed in source form with every package. A reference to those packages (as defined in the BuildRequires: and documented in the Build Log) provides the needed information.
The GPL isn't just about looking at source code -- it's about being able to recreate the software and make changes to it. If I don't have all those tools available to me, then I don't have the complete build source.
Well, I fully agree with this last statement! Thanks for your understanding. Thanks everybody else for helping Linda with the dbm, ndbm, gdbm confusion, despite the flamboyant subject of this thread. cheers, JW. PS: Sponser me a flight from Paris to Hawaii, and I will attempt to build samba while airborne. Whatever that proves. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 say #263A!__/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, J.Guild, F.Imendoerffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg), Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. ☺ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org