Re: Distribution of sources and binaries and the GPL, Again :( (was [Mingw-users] MinGW GCC)

[Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd yahoo com>]

Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> 
> Earnie Boyd writes:
> 
> > The packages libiconv and libintl should be included in the GLib
> > distributed source package in such a fashion that I should just be able
> > to configure && make and all of the dependent pieces are built in proper
> > order.
> 
> Really? Do you realize that there is no separate GLib source package
> for Windows. Are you really claiming that LGPL requires source for all
> dependent libraries that might not be present on some operating system
> to be included in the source packages? Whew.
> 

Yes, really.

> <irony> And why stop there? What about tools? Should one include the
> source to gcc and binutils, too, as few Unix vendors nowadays bundle a
> compiler?  And of course, binary versions of gcc to make the bootstrap
> possible. Not to mention a shell executable to run the configure
> script, a make executable, etc.</irony>
> 

Your irony could be non-irony depending on your distribution wordage. 
If you claim to be able to build using MSVC but you require a special
tool, then yes you need to supply that special tool to distribute the
source.  If you can build using M&M without the need for building that
special tool then no you don't need to supply that special tool.  The
GPL says that the source you distribute for the binary you distribute
must build for the platform you distribute it for.  And that you must
provide any necessary tools and scripts for that platform.

James Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, please.  I must now go reread
the GPL ...

Earnie.