2010/3/23 Andrew Flegg <and...@bleb.org>: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 00:20, Attila Csipa <ma...@csipa.in.rs> wrote: >> On Tuesday 23 March 2010 00:39:09 Darren Long wrote: >>> However, in the general case where the source and the executable are not >>> the same, I believe that maemo.org would be obliged to continue to make >>> the source available, for at least 3 years. > [...] > If the source code doesn't accompany every download, then 3a doesn't > apply so one of 3b or 3c must. > > If 3b applies, maemo.org has to continue to host the source.
Why not pull the binaries and source packages from the *repositories* at the author's request and put them up in a "archival" directory that is not exposed via a Debian repository (and therefore not interfering with the HAM policy, etc..)? Think of snapshot.debian.net - keeping sources and binaries of packages that have since been removed from the official archives does not mean that one has to keep the sources and binaries in the repositories. What about a new subdirectory on the maemo.org server that contains source and binary packages for removed-from-Extras packages? Maybe http://repository.maemo.org/archive/ can be a good place for this. Either manage this manually (by moving stuff to "archive" when pulling packages from the repos) or use "pdumpfs", as snapshot.debian.net does. This would make the GPL discussion irrelevant (because maemo.org can keep providing the source code, accessible via plain HTTP) and would make Khertan happy (because he can provide his packages from his own repository without HAM complaining) and everyone could get back to being productive :) Thomas _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
