On Friday, 6 April 2012 at 13:00:34 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> Yes, but -- if I understand correctly -- the Waf binary is provided as an integral part of the source distribution.  It's not just another program that sits elsewhere on your computer and can be installed independently.
>
> In fact, the zipped-up wscript is contained within the build script as a binary blob, no?  This alone is enough to make it fall under the GPL provisions.

GPL doesn't prohibit distribution in binary form, it's about rights, not form. For example, Linux is distributed in binary form and that's not a problem. Though, it's a perfectly meaningful demand to have waf sources in repository. A source-only package should not cause any harm, should it?

On 09-04-2012 16:24, Kagamin wrote:
> On Friday, 6 April 2012 at 13:00:34 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> Yes, but -- if I understand correctly -- the Waf binary is provided as
>> an integral part of the source distribution. It's not just another
>> program that sits elsewhere on your computer and can be installed
>> independently.
>>
>> In fact, the zipped-up wscript is contained within the build script as
>> a binary blob, no? This alone is enough to make it fall under the GPL
>> provisions.
>
> GPL doesn't prohibit distribution in binary form, it's about rights, not
> form. For example, Linux is distributed in binary form and that's not a
> problem. Though, it's a perfectly meaningful demand to have waf sources
> in repository. A source-only package should not cause any harm, should it?

Of course nothing stops you including the actual Waf source rather than just the compressed binary.

-- 
- Alex

On 09/04/12 16:24, Kagamin wrote:
> GPL doesn't prohibit distribution in binary form, it's about rights, not form.

The point is that there may be no meaningful "corresponding source" to the zipped-up code.  Cf. my other emails in the thread and the Debian discussions linked to.