Re: Build question

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>
>> I should also point out, in Gallery bug 2585568, that the GPL
>> stipulate that when binaries are shipped, the source must also be
>> made available.  I'm sure it is, and I just haven't found it, but
>> others might question the projects adherence to the GPL.
>
> This topic is pretty disturbing.  I read some of the follow-up emails
> to the extent that Gallery2 is on its way out and Gallery3 is the
> future.  The problem is that that Gallery2 has quite a lot of existing
> users and that it will take time before Gallery3 is ready for prime
> time and users can transition to it.
>
> GPL says that the project can only be redistributed if the source
> files, build scripts, and install scripts, are provided in the same
> preferred form as used by the developers.  Any GPL project *must* pay
> attention to this if its developers have respect for the license used,
> and in order to allow the package to be distributed without forcing
> the redistributors to be GPL violators.  If Gallery2 is included in OS
> distribution without proper provision of sources than a judge could
> grant an injunction which blocks the entire OS from being distributed.
>
> It seems wise for someone to take the time to produce a proper source
> distribution for Gallery2.
>
> Bob
> --
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen@...,
> http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/