Jacob Carlborg, el  3 de abril a las 11:56 me escribiste:
> On 2012-04-03 11:06, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> 
> >Make is fairly simple.  What makes it the complex beast it is - IMO - when used in conjunction with autotools.  :-)
> 
> I would say that Make is the most horrible build system I've ever

People that don't like Make is people don't understand Make :)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENE MUTILADO POR PENETRAR UNA ASPIRADORA
	-- Crónica TV

On 2012-04-03 12:56, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> People that don't like Make is people don't understand Make :)

I do have some understanding of Make. BTW, Rake is basically a Make implementation that uses Ruby for the makefiles, it's _a lot_ better than Make.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Joseph Rushton Wakeling, el  4 de abril a las 15:43 me escribiste:
> On 04/04/12 14:24, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> >GPL extends to the build system? This is news to me... that seems a little overzealous... (or maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly)
> >
> >But point taken. If that's how the GPL works, then that's how it is.
> 
> From Section 1 of the GPL:
> 
>    The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the
>    source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run
>    the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those
>    activities.

> To see why it matters, imagine a corporate entity releasing a large, complex piece of software where the code was under a free licence but the build system was proprietary and internal to the company. It'd be a major block to practically enjoying the licence freedoms.

This is new to GPLv3 right? Because several companies are already doing this, specially companies selling small devices with Linux, usually they

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HOMBRE DESNUDO AMENAZA A LOS VECINOS CON UNA "KATANA" DESDE SU BALCON
	-- Crónica TV

On 05/04/12 13:16, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Joseph Rushton Wakeling, el  4 de abril a las 15:43 me escribiste:
>> To see why it matters, imagine a corporate entity releasing a large,
>> complex piece of software where the code was under a free licence
>> but the build system was proprietary and internal to the company.
>> It'd be a major block to practically enjoying the licence freedoms.
>
> This is new to GPLv3 right? Because several companies are already doing
> this, specially companies selling small devices with Linux, usually they

No, it's also in GPLv2, but in Section 3, with slightly different language:

  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 modules it contains, plus any associated interface
  definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
  installation of the executable.

[... see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html ...]