5 ms·

> So, you're telling me that the preferred form for making modifications to the source code of a router does not include the scripts which install onto the rout

by eli 11y ago

> So, you're telling me that the preferred form for making modifications to the source code of a router does not include the scripts which install onto the router to test those modifications? In short: yes. Being able to access and modify and redistribute source code isn't the same as having the ability to deploy it to a particular piece of hardware. Likewise, if I open source a .NET project that doesn't mean it has to include Visual Studio even though VS is the preferred way to build it.

mindslight 11y ago
> Being able to access and modify and redistribute source code isn't the same as having the ability to deploy it to a particular piece of hardware But the preferred form for modification includes being able to test your changes. Source without installation scripts is most likely not the preferred form - ie what do engineers at the company use? > if I open source a .NET project that doesn't mean it has to include Visual Studio, which is the preferred way to build it Yes, because having been designed in the era of expensive compilers, GPL2 explicitly covers this: > 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
- mynameisvlad 11y ago
  Visual Studio is not a "major [component] ... of the operating system on which the executable runs". It's not any component, in fact; it's a completely separate application from the OS, and in no way bundled together.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    You're arguing that a compiler is not a major operating system component when the license explicitly enumerates it as a major operating system component. Nobody says you have to get all your operating system components from the same disc.
    - mynameisvlad 11y ago
      The compiler is part of VS though, not part of the Windows. You don't get VS if you have Windows, and you don't get Windows if you have VS. They're completely separate products. So if it isn't actually included with the OS, and you need to acquire (either through a free or paid license) a completely different product to get it, then I don't see how it could be considered a major component of the OS, regardless of what the license text says. It's not a matter of it being on another disk, it's a matter of it being a completely different product in the Microsoft world.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        It doesn't say anything about products. It doesn't say that major components can't be optional components. It does say that a compiler is a major component of the operating system. You're trying to draw a box around "Windows" and define operating system as everything in that box. But minesweeper is not an operating system component, it's just something that comes with Windows. A hypervisor is an operating system component, even though not all versions of Windows have one. So is a compiler. I imagine there exist developer-oriented PC OEMs that offer PCs with Windows and Visual Studio already installed. So then it is included with the OS by the OEM. The fact that that would change the outcome in your interpretation implies that there is something wrong with it.
      - ccrush 11y ago
        The Windows SDK comes with the c++ and c# compilers, all headers and libraries needed to build windows software. It doesn't come with the fancy text editor or tools in Visual Studio, but it definitely comes with the compilers you need.
dfox 11y ago
IIRC FSF's position on this is that the original author has to include inlude explicit GPL exemption for things like MFC, VCL or even OpenSSL, if the program depends on them, in order for anyone to be legally able to distribute binaries. I would assume that something similar comes into play when building the program requires proprietary compiler that is not "component of the operating system" (although in that case it might very well be implied). That in practice nobody except FSF and Debian cares is another thing.

by eli 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago

> Being able to access and modify and redistribute source code isn't the same as having the ability to deploy it to a particular piece of hardware But the preferred form for modification includes being able to test your changes. Source without installation scripts is most likely not the preferred form - ie what do engineers at the company use? > if I open source a .NET project that doesn't mean it has to include Visual Studio, which is the preferred way to build it Yes, because having been designed in the era of expensive compilers, GPL2 explicitly covers this: > 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

mynameisvlad 11y ago
Visual Studio is not a "major [component] ... of the operating system on which the executable runs". It's not any component, in fact; it's a completely separate application from the OS, and in no way bundled together.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  You're arguing that a compiler is not a major operating system component when the license explicitly enumerates it as a major operating system component. Nobody says you have to get all your operating system components from the same disc.
  - mynameisvlad 11y ago
    The compiler is part of VS though, not part of the Windows. You don't get VS if you have Windows, and you don't get Windows if you have VS. They're completely separate products. So if it isn't actually included with the OS, and you need to acquire (either through a free or paid license) a completely different product to get it, then I don't see how it could be considered a major component of the OS, regardless of what the license text says. It's not a matter of it being on another disk, it's a matter of it being a completely different product in the Microsoft world.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      It doesn't say anything about products. It doesn't say that major components can't be optional components. It does say that a compiler is a major component of the operating system. You're trying to draw a box around "Windows" and define operating system as everything in that box. But minesweeper is not an operating system component, it's just something that comes with Windows. A hypervisor is an operating system component, even though not all versions of Windows have one. So is a compiler. I imagine there exist developer-oriented PC OEMs that offer PCs with Windows and Visual Studio already installed. So then it is included with the OS by the OEM. The fact that that would change the outcome in your interpretation implies that there is something wrong with it.
    - ccrush 11y ago
      The Windows SDK comes with the c++ and c# compilers, all headers and libraries needed to build windows software. It doesn't come with the fancy text editor or tools in Visual Studio, but it definitely comes with the compilers you need.

dfox 11y ago

IIRC FSF's position on this is that the original author has to include inlude explicit GPL exemption for things like MFC, VCL or even OpenSSL, if the program depends on them, in order for anyone to be legally able to distribute binaries. I would assume that something similar comes into play when building the program requires proprietary compiler that is not "component of the operating system" (although in that case it might very well be implied). That in practice nobody except FSF and Debian cares is another thing.