2014-04-02 9:26 GMT+02:00 Vincent van Ravesteijn: > This is the third time we have to tell you to not create and release an > installer for RC1 if it is not exactly what I released as RC1. > > I hope you take notice of this now. >
I may add that this also probably causes license problems. We violate our own license. The GPL requires that "*[§] 2.* You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: *a)* You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." and "[§] *3.* You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: *a)* Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, *b)* Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, *c)* Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above." If changes are committed to the released sources, then there is strictly speaking no accompanying source code to the released binary. So there is also a legal reason why modified binaries contain detailed notes about the changes to the original source and a different name. It might be nitpicking, but it could be that we buy problems by releasing patched binaries without documentation and source (at least in for of diffs). We might weaken our own position in the case someone willingly infringes the license if it can be proves that we do not follow the license ourselves. I suggest that we put a note to the relevant document for binaries packagers stating something along this line: "Please note that binaries must be build from the released sources. Please do not build from the GIT repository. Please do not patch the sources for building. If a patch is absolutely necessary, the patch must be included in your package as well, and you must give the binary a different version in order to make clear that this is not 100% identical with the released sources." Jürgen > > Vincent > >
