Christiaan Welvaart wrote: > On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > >> Christiaan Welvaart wrote: > >>> Short: security updates - the src.rpms are available!?; >>> binary-only CDs - they should include a note that sources are available >>> from mandriva (indirectly...). >> What difference with what we already do at >> http://plf.zarb.org/packages.php, "Genuine packages vs rebuilds" ? > > This was not on my mirror. I was referring to GPL section 3 options b > and c. I also think the common practice is to distribute the sources > (the third option the GPL provides, item a in section 3). > >>>> Looks like a silly pretext. >>> >>> I don't mind if you call me silly; when I take the GPL and look at my >>> PLF mirror I see that I don't comply at all wrt these packages. If I had >>> a public mandriva mirror as well there would not be a problem, but I >>> don't. >> GPL is intended to protect free software interest, by preventing >> unfriendly people to hide source from software they produce. Not to >> cause additional constraints to people distributing those software >> without modification. I fail to see any induced damage with our current >> practice... > > It's the principle of equality (the "egalite" from the french state > motto, right?): why would you not have to follow the rules, just because > you think you're friendly? The "I'm friendly" part is subjective anyway: > a developer of GPLed software could disagree with you about that. I never saw we didn't had to follow the rule, rather than the rule is made for people producing new code. We don't add a line for those packages. We don't hide anything.
Basically, what you're saying is that someone that would pick up any binayr rpm on a ftp server and put in on its own web page would be infringing GPL. That seems a silly litteral interpretation of the text of the GPL, rather than complying with its intent. Some further research from misc suggest than Debian people agree to your point of view: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/07/msg00332.html However, FSF people seems to be less anal: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCSourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites "To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available." We dont have a formal signed agreement from mandriva here, but the fact that all our build directives are integrated into their packages is de-facto a technical agreement. And we don't intend to distribute packages longer than the distribution itself. BTW, this ought to be a public discussion, hence the CC to plf-discuss _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
