From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Jan D." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sources and scripts for generated files Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 11:10:40 +0200 Message-ID: <53830510.9030702@swipnet.se> References: <6C8D2CD9-AF1E-4135-9622-71508BA3D76C@swipnet.se> <5382FC32.1080600@online.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1401095554 10016 80.91.229.3 (26 May 2014 09:12:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 09:12:34 +0000 (UTC) To: =?windows-1252?Q?Andreas_R=F6hler?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 26 11:12:27 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WoqxH-0004sw-Gw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 May 2014 11:12:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55627 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WoqxH-0002VO-18 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 May 2014 05:12:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42052) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Woqx4-0002CU-CF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2014 05:12:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Woqwz-0003UQ-BF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2014 05:12:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailfe07.swip.net ([212.247.154.193]:34303 helo=swip.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Woqwx-0003UG-Qy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2014 05:12:09 -0400 X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 Original-Received: from hosdjarv.se (account mj138573@tele2.se [46.59.42.57] verified) by mailfe07.swip.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.4) with ESMTPA id 503790461; Mon, 26 May 2014 11:10:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: <5382FC32.1080600@online.de> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 212.247.154.193 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:172099 Archived-At: Hi. Andreas Röhler skrev 2014-05-26 10:32: > On 26.05.2014 07:33, Jan Djärv wrote: >> Hello. >> >> 26 maj 2014 kl. 04:31 skrev Glenn Morris : >> >>> >>> Does emacs-24 contain all the sources and scripts that are needed >>> to create any generated files in the tree? >>> >>> E.g. do we need to add >>> http://www.unicode.org/ivd/data/2012-03-02/IVD_Sequences.txt >>> to admin/mac? It's ~ 1MB, and is used to create src/macuvs.h. >> >> IMHO, this is more a legal issue than a practical issue. >> Say we add the file to Emacs. There is no point in re-generating >> src/macuvs.h unless the file changes, and then the one distribiuted >> with Emacs is not used anyway. >> >> But someone with insight to the GPL have to answer this. >> >> Jan D. >> >> >> > > Hi Jan, > > assume you are kidding. No, I'm not. > > If not kidding, I'm still wondering, resp. asking: please make the GPL a > text every Emacs core developer may understand without undergoing > expensive law-studies. > The GPL says: "The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Is macuvs.h source code? I would say so. Is it the form we prefer for modifications? Maybe, maybe not. But then again, why would we make modifications to the underlying Unicode document? We can make modifications to the code that generates macuvs.h, thus we are able to make modifications in the "preferred form" IMHO. You think all people agree in the interpretation of this case, simple as it may be? Then you are kidding yourself. That is why this is a legal question. > Not to hide my personal view: of course there is no legal question. GPL > requires the sources of built executable to be shipped, but not the > stuff mayby useful for writing the sources. First you say there is no legal question. Then you cite a legal document making a legal requirement, thus underlying the fact that this *IS* a legal question. Note that GPL does nowhere mentions "writing sources", it just mentions preferred form. So your view is just an interpretation for which I can find no basis for in the GPL. That does not say it is wrong, just that it is not clear-cut. Jan D.