[Introspector-mingw32] Fwd: Re: new win32 port of GTK http://introspector.sourceforge.net/dia_win32.htm

[James M. D. <mdu...@ya...>]

--- Charles Schmidt <csc...@em...> wrote:
> From Charles Schmidt Wed Jan  8 07:23:08 2003
> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 10:23:08 -0500
> From: Charles Schmidt <csc...@em...>
> Subject: Re: new win32 port of GTK
>  http://introspector.sourceforge.net/dia_win32.htm
> To: James Michael DuPont <mdu...@ya...>
> CC: gtk...@gn...
> 
> -
> 
> I've been following this for a bit, and thought I would add my two 
> cents, so to speak.
> 
> James Michael DuPont wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > See section 3 of the GPL : 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
> for
> > making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
> > code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus
> any
> > associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> control
> > compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
> special
> > exception, the source code distributed need not include anything
> that
> > is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the
> > major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating
> system
> > on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
> accompanies
> > the executable. "
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > "is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the
> > major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating
> system"
> > 
> > libiconv, gettext, glib and gtk are distributed with debian and are
> > easy to compile. The sources are effectivly in the same place.
> > 
> > Under windows it is a nightmare!
> > The port to windows needs all of that this is very clearly covered
> by
> > the GPL.
> 
> Yes. I'm sure it is a nightmare.  However, I don't read the GPL has 
> requiring distribution of those libraries.  The GPL says the source
> code 
> needs to contain:  the source, interface definition files and
> Makefiles 
> (or the like).  It says nothing about external libraries.  The GPL
> goes 
> on to say that the source code does not need to distribute anything
> that 
> is not common on the operating system.   I understand this to say
> that 
> it does not need to distribute/include anything that relates to or is
> 
> requried by the [source, interface definition files or Makefiles]. 
> No 
> where in the list of things to distribute does the GPL say that 
> libraries the program links to, or other programs the program may
> depend 
> on need to be distributed at the same place as the source code.
> 
> Therefore, www.gtk.org provides the sources and win32 binaries.  What
> is 
> the problem?  Furthermore, if you look at 
> ftp://ftp.gtk.org/pub/gtk/v2.2/dependencies  (or v2.0/dependencies or
> 
> what have you) You see liibjpeg, libpng and libtiff! Goodness!  Its
> not 
> as if these additional libaries are difficult to track down or
> anything. 
>   The Gtk+ team goes above and beyond by providing the source to
> these 
> libraries.  Many other GPL projects merely provide a link to the
> website 
> of the library, and require the user to navigate and track down the
> source.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > So, I think that my criticism of the practices at the time in july
> were
> > valid and fair. Since then I have taken steps to fix the problem
> and
> > present a set of sources that are in full compliance with the gpl. 
> > 
> > Please do give my effort at least a reference from your GTK+ page, 
> > many people do not know about this work,and would benefit from it.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think people would benefit from it terribly. 
> You're 
> merely providing yet another build of the source.  You may be
> following 
> a different interpretation of the GPL, and may have a different build
> 
> system, but the fact remains that it is merely another build for the 
> win32 platform.  I see no reason to replace or even coexist with Tor
> & 
> Hans' work, which is sanctioned by the Gtk+ already.  Why give
> people, 
> especially Windows users, the kind of confusion that will stem from
> two 
> differing versions of Gtk+ for Windows?  If you have fault with the
> Gtk+ 
> win32 team, why not attemp to work with them, rather than breaking
> away 
> like this?
> 
> > thanks, 
> > mike
> > 
> > 
> > =====
> > James Michael DuPont
> > http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
> 
> Just my unsollicited thoughts on the subject.  I am in no way part of
> 
> the Gtk+ team or development, merely an interested developer of Gtk+ 
> applications.
> 
> -charlie
> 


=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com