Arnt Karlsen wrote earlier today: > ..I disagree, once you have the _complete_ recipe, with correct compiler > versions, settings, time stamps etc thrown in, you will be able to prove > all your correct checksums etc in GPL compliance cases. _No_ need to back > off here.
I just don't think "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" requires that you get a byte-for-byte identical binary. I don't have any objection to asking for byte-by-byte perfection, but I don't think GPL demands it. Generally speaking, GPL instead demands that a reasonably knowledgeable developer/build-engineer can follow the instructions from the distributor to generate a binary from source that will build, install and run in the same manner that the distributed GPL binary installs and runs. > ..but we should suggest a proper way to do this, so people like Mikrotek > can properly document their checksums and the proper way to verify their > checksums and GPL etc compliance. There have been some ideas floated, most notably by Ed Warnicke, of how we might be able to encode checksums of the source in binaries without taking up too much space. I think these mechanisms should be studied, built, and encouraged. I've even urged groups like SPDX to focus on this sort of thing, as it would be much more useful than the current projects they're doing. > Leave these long tall sweaty tSCOG-like stories on why-it-failed to the > offenders. I'm not sure this attitude helps our problems with failed compliance. We have a world filled with hundreds of GPL violators who are refusing to give us adequate CCS for their GPL'd binaries. While I sympathize more than you can probably imagine with your sentiment, I'm not sure how mere posturing and demanding something that we'd "like to have" will get them to comply with the GPL. -- bkuhn
