Ahoy hoy,
On 2015-03-20 15:50, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
I'm pretty sure that this is not the case. Depending on which version of the AGPL has been used, the wording might be different, but AGPLv3The source is available but the Makefile is missing. The developer saysIt's up to developer whether to supply a Makefile with the source code
it's to make it a bit more difficult to build it yourself. Eventually
for removing the registration.
It's a complex Java program what depends on many third party components
(all free), so maybe it's not so easy to make such a Makefile, no idea.
What's your opinion?
or not.
clearly states.
„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.“
As far as I know, the intention of this paragraph was specifically to cover Makefiles and the like.
I'm pretty sure that not publishing the Makefile constitutes a violation of the AGPL. Depending on what you intend to do about it, you might want to get in touch with FSFE's legal team. If this single developer is the sole copyright owner, trying to enforce the publication of the Makefile might just result in him changing the license, so you might want to be careful about what you do.1. If you, as a supporter, can get the Makefile from the main developer,He would give me the Makefile, and some other interested developers. But
everyone else should be able to get it too.
I would not publish it when he does not want that. You will understand.
Still, I believe not publishing a Makefile isn't just "bad practice" but a violation of the license.
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion