OSX Xboard 4.7.2 .app

[JoshPettus]

There, fixed and uploaded

[Max]

Hi Joshua,

Code: Select all

Last login: Sun Oct 20 11:33:25 on console
/Applications/Xboard.app/Contents/MacOS/xboard ; exit;
maxs-macbook:~ max$ /Applications/Xboard.app/Contents/MacOS/xboard ; exit;
xboard
/Applications/Xboard.app/Contents/MacOS
/Applications/Xboard.app/Contents/MacOS/:/Applications/Xboard.app/Contents/Resources/bin:/opt/local/bin:/opt/local/sbin:/Users/max/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/opt/X11/bin:/usr/X11/bin
Segmentation fault
logout

get only a terminal with the above message.

Any cpu specific tuning in your compile? My old core2duo macbook still runs OSX 10.6. Perhaps -march=core2 and -mmacosx-version-min=10.6 could save me?

Thanks,
Max

[zullil]

I can confirm getting the same segfault on my OS X 10.6 system.

Also, is the source code included in the bundle? Didn't see it. Should it be there, due to GPL?

[hgm]

That only applies when you would change the source code, right? Not if you just distribute a compiled version of an unmodified well-known public source. GNU itself hosts XBoard binaries without source code. Binary Debian packages never contain any source code. It would be very counter-productive, in fact evil, to force people to piggy-back 10MB of source code on a 500KB binary.

I don't distribute source code with the WinBoard binary install...

[zullil]

That only applies when you would change the source code, right? Not if you just distribute a compiled version of an unmodified well-known public source. GNU itself hosts XBoard binaries without source code. Binary Debian packages never contain any source code. It would be very counter-productive, in fact evil, to force people to piggy-back 10MB of source code on a 500KB binary.

I don't distribute source code with the WinBoard binary install...

Fine. Actually, all I wanted to see was the Makefile Joshua used.

[hgm]

Aha. Just out of curiosity: would makefiles fall under the GPL? They are not part of the code. In fact no one could ever prove whether you used a makefile. You might as well have typed gcc *.c ... A makefile is just a tool privately used to generate the binary. You might as well claim the sources of MSVC, when someone used it to compile a GPL'ed project.

[Michel]

Aha. Just out of curiosity: would makefiles fall under the GPL? They are not part of the code. In fact no one could ever prove whether you used a makefile. You might as well have typed gcc *.c ... A makefile is just a tool privately used to generate the binary. You might as well claim the sources of MSVC, when someone used it to compile a GPL'ed project.

The build procedure is part of the source. If you don't want to distribute the makefiles you should give alternative build instructions to generate the same binary.

[hgm]

So I am not allowed to distribute a binary that is made by a private compiler? E.g. suppose I develop a superior optimizing algorithm that produces 2x faster code, and set up a business where people would pay me to compile their sources, they could not use my service for GPL'ed sources? Or would it be enough if in the build instructions they said: sent it to H.G., and pay the outrageous fees he charges?

What if I distribute a binary made by a commercial compiler, like MSVC? You could not use that without paying MicroSoft...

[syzygy]

Aha. Just out of curiosity: would makefiles fall under the GPL?

The GPLv2 gives the answer:

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. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

So if you distribute a binary compiled from source code obtained under the GPL, you have to make available the Makefile and/or whatever instructions you used to create the binary as well (maybe including the precise version of the OS and/or compilers used).

[hgm]

And what if this 'script' is noting but a single line

HGsuperCompiler -O99 *.c -o gpl.exe

where HGsuperCompiler is not publicly available? I could even specify its version very precisely as $999,867, but that wouldn't really make it useful for anyone.