From maintainers-request at octave dot org Mon Jan 9 20:03:26 2006 Subject: Re: Successful compilation with MinGW From: Andy Adler To: "James R. Phillips" cc: "maintainers at octave dot org" Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:01:28 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, James R. Phillips wrote: > --- Shai Ayal wrote: > > > This is surprising! > > > > So, Andy, would it be safe to say that providing an octave installer > > for windows is only a "time" problem -- i.e. someone would have to > > invest the time but there are no "technological" problems? would the > > following procedure work? > > > > 1. get current octave & octave-forge precompiled cygwin packages and > > dependencies > > 2. get current cygwin1.dll and binary edit it to replace "Cygnus > > Solutions" as the registry key. > > OK, step 2 here is problematic. First, if you distribute cygwin1.dll, you must > also distribute the source (gpl requirement). If the binary does not > correspond to the source, then you haven't met the requirement. A binary diff > is probably not acceptable either. I think it would be necessary to patch the > source, and build the binary from that. I would argue that this is unnecessarily pedantic. The issue at stake is probably the quote from section 3. "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." However, in this case we have the source; and we have the instructions for the binary patch. This is the preferred form, in the sense that it is the one I chose to do because it was the easiest. If I distribute software and provide to the recipient exactly the pieces and recipe that I used to build - and modify - the binary, then I'm believe that I have complied with the GPL. To argue the opposite puts one is a paradoxical situation. The GPL is actually decreasing freedom by preventing certain useful coding practices. -- Andy Adler 1(613)562-5800x6218