Le vendredi 31 mars 2006 à 10:19 +0200, Guillaume Rousse a écrit : > 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.
The specfile will be in cvs forever but the source tarball may disappear before we build the new version :/ Maybe we should store the src.rpm when we rebuild for plf somewhere... _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
