Martin Bialasinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It doesn't say, the binary and the sources have to be in the same > archive file. In fact, it doesn't say anything about archive files (or > similar). The entity in which xmysqladmin is distributed by Debian are > out archives. And they contain the source.
Well, yes. However, Debian's goals in licensing issues are twofold: 1. To prevent the Debian archive itself from violating copyright terms. 2. To make reasonably sure that a CD-ROM vendor would not be violating copyright conditions by selling binary disks separately. The second of this is not to be taken lightly just because there wouldnt be any concrete legal threat to the Debian project if it failed. It would do immense damage to Debian's reputation if someone were to successfully sue a CR-ROM vendor over selling Debian binary disks. And Debian would lose a most important distribution channel. My personal opinion, though, is that we should have peace in accepting short-worded licenses that just say something like "binary distribution must be accompanied by source" without further qualification about what "accompanied" means. In most cases the author really meant to allow distribution on GPL-like terms and simply failed to understand the legal importance of being precise about what one means. Of course that is, unless we know definitely that the author wants a less liberal interpretation of the wording. Still, it might be a good idea to keep a "important" bug open on the loose wording until the author has been asked to answer specifically if he thinks the license would prevent a commercial vendor from selling media with binary packages, if it offers source separately. If the author has no problems, his answer should be included in the copyright file for the package and everyone will be happy. -- Henning Makholm
