|
From: | Michael Goffioul |
Subject: | Re: Octave/Win32 update |
Date: | Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:23:52 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) |
| My idea was to put somewhere (in octave-forge, for instance) all that| is required to re-build the complete thing, as I do. This means the | compile tools (like cc-msvc),I think it would also be OK to include these scripts in the Octave sources if you would like.
I would prefer to keep all stuff in a centralized place for the moment. And not spread it between octave and octave-forge. As this is still work-in-progress, I propose to put everything in octave-forge in a first step (admin/Windows/msvc/). Once things get stabilized, we can decide to move them along. Does that sound
OK?
| but also for each support lib, a patch | and a howto explaining how I compile the library under MSVC | (which is sometimes quite tricky). For the GPL packages, I guess | we'd also need to provide the original source package (on request, | for instance, because they are available on the web anyway).| | Would that be OK?I think you need to provide the sources alongside the binary, and not just patches, but either the complete patched sources, or the original sources plus the patches. Please see the following FAQ and ones related to it: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCAnonFTPAndSendSource Also, I think that you need to distribute the complete source, not just the parts that are explicitly covered by the GPL. Once you combine the parts, the GPL requires that users can get the complete source for the version of the program that you are distributing (with the exception of libraries that are part of the OS, as we discussed earlier).
So, the sources for all packages I listed in my previous mail should be distributed along with the binary, included the source for octave and octave-forge. Where do I put all this? I guess a link to the original source package is not enough...
Michael.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |