[Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#931003: Bug#931003: Removed package(s) from unstable

[Gerardo Ballabio]

Thanks for your answer.

That the Makefile, if present, should work is certainly a reasonable
expectation, but as far as I can see, it isn't a license requirement.
Note that the GPL also explicitly states that the program is provided
without warranty of any kind (clause 11 in GPLv2, 15 in GPLv3), that
is, if it doesn't build, you're on your own. Your quote says that the
build scripts are part of the source code, but doesn't give them any
special status: a bug in the Makefile is the same as a bug in a source
file.

So I'd say that if the Makefile is broken (and you say it "may or may
not work" so that isn't even sure?), that's a bug, but not a license
violation.

I am not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion.

Gerardo

Il giorno gio 6 mag 2021 alle ore 10:47 Santiago Vila
<sanvila at unex.es> ha scritto:
>
> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 09:50:43AM +0200, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Among those packages there is even a GPL violation in gcc-8-cross,
> > as the FTBFS problem happens because the Makefile is buggy (the GPL
> > says packages must be distributed with a working Makefile).
> >
> > I was very surprised to read that. I just reread the GPL and could not
> > find that condition. Could you please direct me to where it says so?
> > As far as I understand, the GPL doesn't (and shouldn't) even require
> > that packages have a Makefile at all. Indeed, I believe there are
> > plenty of GPL'd software that use other build systems.
> > And any requirement that software may not have bugs is of course unenforceable.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to say that packages should include a Makefile.
> I meant that the Makefile, if present, should *work*.
>
> Quoting GPL-2:
>
>  The source code for a work means [...] plus the scripts used to
>  control compilation and installation of the executable.
>
> This is a general reference to whatever procedure a program may have
> to be built. If the program normally needs a Makefile, you have to
> provide the Makefile, and I guess that it's reasonable to assume that
> the Makefile should work, because the purpose is to enable anybody
> who receives the source code to build the program.
>
> In the case of gcc-8-cross, there is a Makefile which may or may not
> work:
>
> https://jenkins-1.reliable-builds.org/job/gcc-8-cross/
>
> which I consider a GPL violation.
>
> Thanks.