Partially verified this.
I checked the "manifests" for the rpms and debs. Sure enough the
binaries are
being distributed as part of the WSJT-X binary package. They are not
listed as
dependencies.
Working trough the source code, they are not there. It would appear
that those
of us building from source will be unable to participate in any of the
RC testing,
as we do not have complete packages.
HOWEVER....
All three have a git hub repository, dated July 2024. In other words,
just opened.
So I doubt very much this is a license issue, as much as it is a
catching up issue.
Perhaps the RC6 offering was done a little too quickly, before the git
hub code was
made available. NO BIG DEAL. We are all volunteers and offer our
SPARE time.
Sometimes, spare time isn't always in sync with each other.
PAULISPER EXSPECTA
On 7/19/24 09:22, Kenji Rikitake JJ1BDX via wsjt-devel wrote:
I do appreciate all the efforts poured into the SuperFox Mode.
Writing that, I'd like to state one thing:
The current WSJT-X (2.7.0-RC5 and later) has a self-contradictory license
and that should be fixed ASAP.
GPLv3 requires ALL binary code must be able to be produced/built
from the distributed source code [1].
Currently, the SuperFox binaries, namely foxchk/sftx/sfrx are
unable to be built from the source code distributed as a part of WSJT-X.
This means the current state as of the 2.7.0-RC6 self-contradicts
with the license being claimed.
I would like this situation to be fixed ASAP.
There are a few possible ways to fix this situation:
by changing the license to allow the proprietary binaries,
or separating the proprietary part (namely SuperFox Mode binaries),
or making the source code of SuperFox Mode available with the package.
There might even be another way that doesn't come up to my mind.
I do not want to start a bikeshed discussion of licensing.
I simply would like the developers of WSJT-X to take this situation
seriously and propose a practical solution.
I hope WSJT-X would remain fully open-sources as it had been.
73
Kenji Rikitake, JJ1BDX
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeExtendedBinary
Quote:
> I want to distribute an extended version of a GPL-covered program in
binary form. Is it enough to distribute the source for the original
version?
> No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary.
Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the
same binary.
Part of the idea of free software is that users should have access to
the source code for *the programs they use*. Those using your version
should have access to the source code for your version.
A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making sure
that improvement to a free program are themselves free. If you release
an improved version of a GPL-covered program, you must release the
improved source code under the GPL.
Unquote.
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
--
Jeff Stillinger - KB6IBB
KB6IBB Laboratories, Wylie Tx
http://kb6ibb-15.ham-radio-op.net/
Reddit: r/KB6IBBSWLLogger
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
