On Mon, 16 May 2005, Rex Dieter wrote:
Until now, I've never encountered a vendor who provided rpms who didn't
either offer the src.rpm and/or specfile.
If you had asked them for those files, maybe they would have given them to
you. I think you told them that they *had* to give the file(s) to yo
Kyle McDonald wrote:
>> This is what it boils down to surely, and I humbly disagree.
>>
> Have you ever heard of anyone else making this claim?
> How was it resolved?
AFAIK, it's never been an issue. Until now, I've never encountered a vendor
who provided rpms who didn't either offer the src.rpm
Steve Bostedor wrote:
> According to his interpretation of the GPL, RealVNC should have included
> a fully configured C++ compiler, too!
I've only ever asked for the scripts used to generate the rpm.
-- Rex
___
VNC-List mailing list
VNC-List@realvnc.c
Rex Dieter wrote:
"The" script used to generate the (GPL) rpm on the VNC website is in
the sources? Really? If so, I'll shut up and go away.
Promise? ;) Just kidding.
I haven't looked, but from what others have said there is a sscript or
Makefile that will build the binaries from the sources.
alVNC code. If you want to be a watchdog, go
after them.
Steve Bostedor
http://www.vncscan.com
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rex Dieter
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 12:59 PM
> To: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> S
Rex Dieter wrote:
James Weatherall wrote:
The source code we supply is exactly the code
used to create the binaries contained in the downloadable RPM.
Except for the specfile used to actually generate the downloadable RPM, of
course.
Why are you so resistant to releasing the specfile?
Yo
Rex Dieter wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Kyle McDonald wrote:
If they were *only* providing tarball binaries, this would be true.
However, in the case of binary rpms, the "preferred" form the Source
Code (as defined by the GPL) is clearly either a src.rpm or the
(already-provided) tar-file + rpm s
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rex Dieter
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:27 AM
> To: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: RE: src.rpm/specfile, GPL violation
>
> Steve Bostedor wrote:
>
> > Th
James Weatherall wrote:
> The source code we supply is exactly the code
> used to create the binaries contained in the downloadable RPM.
Except for the specfile used to actually generate the downloadable RPM, of
course.
Why are you so resistant to releasing the specfile?
-- Rex
Rex Dieter wrote:
In this case, a *binary rpm* is what is being distributed... the
"preferred
form of the work" and "scripts used to control compilation and
installation" is rpm specfile and/or src.rpm.
No, It doesn't have to be a specfile. It can be any script or config
files that successful
Rex Dieter wrote:
and theirs to distribute how they see fit.
True, provided it complies with their (own) licensing terms.
Any copyright holder of any work can relicense it at anytime with new
terms. So the copyright holder doesn't have to live by anything they've
done in the past.
Of course the
James Weatherall wrote:
Kyle,
If we release binaries under the GPL then we have to honour the license's
requirements to make the source code to those binaries available, in the
same way as anyone else does, which we do. If we didn't do that, we'd be
failing to honour the license under which we'd d
to a tarball or zipfile.
Regards,
Wez @ RealVNC Ltd.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rex Dieter
> Sent: 16 May 2005 16:22
> To: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: RE: src.rpm/specfile, GPL violation
>
> James
t: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:56 AM
To: John Aldrich
Cc: vnc-list@realvnc.com
Subject: RE: src.rpm/specfile, GPL violation
On Mon, 16 May 2005, John Aldrich wrote:
> What part of "tarball of the source" do you think means they're not
> including the source code?
Who said anything
L PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rex Dieter
> Sent: 16 May 2005 16:12
> To: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: Re: src.rpm/specfile, GPL violation
>
> Kyle McDonald wrote:
>
> > Rex Dieter wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by
Rex Dieter wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by failing to
provide the (preferred) source to the binary they distribute.
On top of that, it's trechnically impossible for Real-VNC to violate the
GPL.
I suggest you
May 2005 15:53
> To: Rex Dieter
> Cc: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: Re: src.rpm/specfile, GPL violation
>
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> >
> > RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by failing to
> > provide the (preferred) source to the binary they distri
there some
particular reason you want to rebuild them from scratch?
Cheers,
Wez @ RealVNC Ltd.
> -Original Message-
> From: Rex Dieter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 16 May 2005 16:39
> To: James Weatherall
> Cc: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: RE: src.rpm/specfile
Steve Bostedor wrote:
> They are the authors and the GPL license is in
> place to protect them and not us.
> The GPL isn't in place to give us the
> right to their code but rather to protect their rights while graciously
> giving us their code.
IMO, the GPL is intended to protect *both* author
u purchased RealVNC. There are other
GPL-ed apps out there that do exactly this.
John
-Original Message-
From: Rex Dieter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:12 AM
To: vnc-list@realvnc.com
Subject: Re: src.rpm/specfile, GPL violation
Kyle McDonald wrote:
> Rex
Before you paste it, read it yourself.
It says "ONE OF THE FOLLOWING", not "ALL OF THE FOLLOWING"
Rex Dieter wrote:
>Kyle McDonald wrote:
>
>
>
>>Rex Dieter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by failing to
>>>provide the (preferred) source to the binary th
Steve Bostedor wrote:
> The format that the source is to be delivered in is not covered by the
> GPL.
Yes it does:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all mo
James Weatherall wrote:
> Please do not spread libellous rumours regarding the RealVNC Ltd. and the
> GPL!
Sigh, I had hoped it wouldn't deteriorate into something like this.
I'm not spreading rumors, and don't intend to.
I simply had hoped to receive some sort of reply from RealVNC regarding
so
Kyle McDonald wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>>
>> RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by failing to
>> provide the (preferred) source to the binary they distribute.
> On top of that, it's trechnically impossible for Real-VNC to violate the
> GPL.
I suggest you read the GPL then (
nday, May 16, 2005 10:17 AM
> To: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: src.rpm/specfile, GPL violation
>
> I've been patiently waiting for a response from RealVNC
> regarding the (un)availability of an rpm specfile and/or
> src.rpm for linux, since my
> originally post here on
On Behalf Of Kyle McDonald
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:53 AM
> To: Rex Dieter
> Cc: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: Re: src.rpm/specfile, GPL violation
>
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> >
> > RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by failing to
> >
ards,
Wez @ RealVNC Ltd.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rex Dieter
> Sent: 16 May 2005 15:17
> To: vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: src.rpm/specfile, GPL violation
>
> I've been patiently waiting
Rex Dieter wrote:
RealVNC is violating the GPL (unknowningly or not) by failing to
provide the (preferred) source to the binary they distribute.
Given other conversations on here about GPL issues, I'd be surprised if
there was really anything underhanded going on here.
On top of that, it's trec
I've been patiently waiting for a response from RealVNC regarding the
(un)availability of an rpm specfile and/or src.rpm for linux, since my
originally post here on April 29. I only wanted to see how it was
built, as I've issues with a home-brewed rpm version of mine(1) which
are apparently n
29 matches
Mail list logo
