zlacker

> the build process [...] It's not strictly required by the definition of open source, but....

But it is required by Free Software licenses. GPLv2 §3[0]:

> 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.

GPLv3 §1[1]:

> 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.

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

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

>>Karell+(OP)
That's a misinterpretation.

If you are distributing someone else's GPL code, then you must comply with the license and provide build scripts etc.

If you choose to release some code under the GPL that you yourself have written, but do not feel like even writing a Makefile, that's totally fine.

>>kelnos+43
By that method, you might claim that all terms of all licenses (Free Software, Open Source, or proprietary) aren't really important, as the copyright holder can always ignore any of them.

I mean, yes, that's technically correct. But I'm not sure how useful it is? What is it adding to the discussion?

>>Karell+xr1
They are binding on users who obtain binaries. Not on the copyright holder.

The holder can change licencing for new versions of the software afterall