On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:17:58 -0500, Bradley wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> 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. ..11 years back, people were "happy to rip out _any_ SCO code in Linux, and start over from scratch, just name it." Da Darl's Dark side didn't want that kinda standard make it into case law. ;o) > > ..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. ..I agree. > > 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. ..it's not going to, until _after_ we have those easy simple test standards in place for the courts and their jurors. Only once that happens, we can start demand it in e.g. GPLv2.2+ and GPLv3.1+. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
