* Georg C. F. Greve:
In case you are interested in general discussions on Free Software, our mailing list discussion@fsfeurope.org will remain available for that.
Will there be a general discussion list for users who wish to exchange thoughts, without the intent of submitting a formal comment yet? Such a list would be quite useful, even if the S/N were pretty low and you'd have to use your killfile extensively.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:52:17 +0100, Florian Weimer said:
Will there be a general discussion list for users who wish to exchange thoughts, without the intent of submitting a formal comment yet? Such a list would be quite useful, even if the S/N were pretty low and
Feel free to use this list for now. If the traffic increases too much to disturb otehr discussions we could think about moving the GPL topic to somewhere else.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
* Werner Koch:
Feel free to use this list for now. If the traffic increases too much to disturb otehr discussions we could think about moving the GPL topic to somewhere else.
Okay.
The section on source code does not mention test suites. Have they been considered at all?
For sufficiently complex software, a suite of regression tests is extremely helpful for making modifications. However, in some areas, there is a strong interest in proprietary test suites (in the GCC context, for example). Forced publication of test suites would unduly extend the scope of software copyright. That's why I'm not sure if anything should be done about this.
At Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:01:06 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
- Werner Koch:
Feel free to use this list for now. If the traffic increases too much to disturb otehr discussions we could think about moving the GPL topic to somewhere else.
Okay.
The section on source code does not mention test suites. Have they been considered at all?
For sufficiently complex software, a suite of regression tests is extremely helpful for making modifications. However, in some areas, there is a strong interest in proprietary test suites (in the GCC context, for example). Forced publication of test suites would unduly extend the scope of software copyright. That's why I'm not sure if anything should be done about this.
Because you don't distribute (or propagate in GPLv3 terms) anything when running a test suite on a program, I don't see how the GPL could enforce anything about test suites.
Jeroen Dekkers
* Jeroen Dekkers:
For sufficiently complex software, a suite of regression tests is extremely helpful for making modifications. However, in some areas, there is a strong interest in proprietary test suites (in the GCC context, for example). Forced publication of test suites would unduly extend the scope of software copyright. That's why I'm not sure if anything should be done about this.
Because you don't distribute (or propagate in GPLv3 terms) anything when running a test suite on a program, I don't see how the GPL could enforce anything about test suites.
The same argument could be applied to the encryption keys and build scripts, but providing them is explicitly required.
At Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:57:20 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
- Jeroen Dekkers:
For sufficiently complex software, a suite of regression tests is extremely helpful for making modifications. However, in some areas, there is a strong interest in proprietary test suites (in the GCC context, for example). Forced publication of test suites would unduly extend the scope of software copyright. That's why I'm not sure if anything should be done about this.
Because you don't distribute (or propagate in GPLv3 terms) anything when running a test suite on a program, I don't see how the GPL could enforce anything about test suites.
The same argument could be applied to the encryption keys and build scripts, but providing them is explicitly required.
That's because you can't exercise your rights (modifying the software) without them. Build scripts are also clearly part of the software. Test suites don't have to be that, you might not even know whether it exists.
To give an example, if I create my own GNU/Linux distribution and want to have it POSIX-compliant, I can download and run a POSIX test suite. But being forced to publish that test suite doesn't sound right to me.
Jeroen Dekkers
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:48 +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Because you don't distribute (or propagate in GPLv3 terms) anything when running a test suite on a program, I don't see how the GPL could enforce anything about test suites.
I guess if the program is complex enough and the output needs to be correct, you can argue that the source without the test suite is not the complete source code (not the preferred form for modification).
It would be a bit like if the program was originally coded full of pre- and post- conditions and tests, but those were stripped out in the released source. The test suite is like a builder's scaffolding, and removing it potentially makes the job a lot harder. But, I'm not sure this is anything more than a bizarre corner case.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:48 +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Because you don't distribute (or propagate in GPLv3 terms) anything when running a test suite on a program, I don't see how the GPL could enforce anything about test suites.
I guess if the program is complex enough and the output needs to be correct, you can argue that the source without the test suite is not the complete source code (not the preferred form for modification).
I disagree in general but I can create cases where it is true. Let the source be in some obfuscated langauge where mistakes are common. Let the compile not have error checking, but have its source available. It then becomes futile to try and edit the source without the "test framework"
This certainly is a bizarre corner case but lets not pretend that the GPL may tend fiends in this direction if it is the only way out. I don't think it will do them any good...
To me the test suite is an incomplete computer executable form of the specification. The test suite may technically be partially derived from the project which could render it's distribution subject to the GPL. This may prevent me from distributing a test suite that is based on a closed framework, if I am using it to test GPL software.
Interesting...
Sam