Re: Building Octave without xcode

[Michael D. Godfrey]

On 12/25/10 10:17 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> Is it impossible to build Octave without Xcode? Ben just pushed a
> patch (11410:2df163be223e) for README.MacOS which suggests installing
> Xcode in order to build Octave. This breaks with the GNU coding
> standards:
>
>       http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html
The strict interpretation of this does not allow building Octave under
MAC OSX at all. Essentially all parts on the current Apple software are
under some form of Apple license including all of the BSD code licensed
from UCB,  (See the /usr/include/*.h files for the Apple License statement.)
The X11 code provide by Apple only contains the Open Group license, but
it is distributed with the Apple code, as is Xcode.  Both are included 
on the
install disk which you purchase from Apple.  This disk is clearly identified
as Apple proprietary.

Initially, Apple excluded X11 from its software distributions.  It was
speculated that they did this not just because they liked Quartz, but due to
concerns about including free software (under some form of free license)
with their proprietary software.  Some semblance of common sense and
business requirements has caused them to decide that it is alright to
distribute free software as part of their proprietary software.  I do not
see how others should feel that they cannot legally use such software.
If any legal issue arises, it is Apple's problem since they are the 
distributor.

So, I would say that it is OK to use Apple gcc, X11, Xcode, or anything else
that comes on the Apple install disk.  It might be a good idea to make a
statement somewhere to the effect that the Mac OS distribution of Octave
contains Apple proprietary software and thus is only to be used on Mac OS
licensed systems.  Does this seem objectionable from the standpoint of
the free software terms?  If so, there can be no official Mac distribution.

I do believe that Apple is in a somewhat difficult position of both strongly
defending "their" proprietary software and including with it software which
either explicitly or otherwise is under forms of free software license.  
But,
that is their problem.

Michael