While it is true that the Free Software Foundation cannot violate its own copyright, its goal is to allow receipts of the software to enjoy all of the freedoms, including the ability to modify and distribute the modified work according to the terms of the license.
However, my own concern goes beyond copyright or licences, and is about how future-safe the product is. Most of us are old enough to have seen version control systems come and go (many times), and supportive Internet servers come and go. GNU was already well underway before most people were aware of the Internet. The social and technical fabric associated with development, and releases , has changed several times. The source archive tarball is one of the few constants for these many years. We should strive to assure that the tarball is as complete as possible. I have not looked at the bootstrap script in question. Perhaps it is dependent on a particular version control system, or servers, and thus would not stand the test of time when encapsulated in a tarball. Bob On Mon, Jun 2, 2025, 1:55 PM Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 12:12:47PM -0400, Nick Bowler wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2025 at 06:48:38PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > > It seems a shame that a distribution tarball will lack a source file > > > due to makefile build rules. Build rules are a simple technical issue, > > > which have been solved before, and are even already supported by > > > Automake. > > > > I agree wholeheartedly. The bootstrap script forms part of the > > corresponding source code for configure and should definitely be > > included in the distribution. > > > > Automake is distributed under the terms of the GPL version 2 or any > > later version. The configure script included in the tar archive > > unquestionably is object code or executable form and the version 2 of > > the GPL requires that whenever anyone distributes object code, they must > > ALSO distribute "complete source code ... plus scripts used to control > > compilation" which unquestionably includes the bootstrap script. > > Version 3 of the GPL has very similar requirements. > > Here's the text from GPLv3: > > 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. However, it does not include the work's System > Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs > which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are > not part of the work. > > So a bootstrap script could meet the criteria of being "Corresponding > Source", but it would depend on what was in the script. Usually, > generating the configure script (for example) can be done with a > single command-line invocation of "autoconf" or "autoreconf". It > would not be necessary to distribute a single-line bootstrap > script that simply called "autoreconf". Distributing configure.ac > and any other source files would be enough. In that case, what was > distributed was self-contained and had all the human-legible source > code required to "generate, install, run and modify" the work. > > I'd also argue that mere usefulness is not enough to make something > part of the Corresponding Source. Some might find a bootstrap script > useful just as some may find the entire git history useful for > development. However, removing either and distributing the result > is not necessarily a licence violation. > > If the bootstrap script is a more complicated program that is necessary > for the regeneration of files such as 'configure' and 'Makefile.in', > and users would find it difficult to do this correctly by running > commands themselves, then it can be argued that the bootstrap prrogram > is part of the Corresponding Source. > > (It is possible that Automake itself, as a GNU project copyrighted > by the Free Software Foundation, cannot violate the copyrights of > the Free Software Foundation, just as a natural human being could > not violate their own copyright - the bootstrap issue is more > general though and of interest to non-GNU projects under the GPL.) >
