John Dong wrote:
Indeed, and a good reason; The GPL FAQ mentions that this is not enough: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCSourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites Aye but then you have to provide the sources for 3 years which is a major headache, rather just do what everyone else does and keep the source online for as long as the binary is online and sucks to anyone who forgot to download the source when they got the binary. The GPL FAQ also mentions this: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient However, Extras and Backports are a blessing and I am anxious to add to the solution, not to the problem. I'm happy to privately donate some money (if you can keep it simple, I've tried to donate to debian before, but its too complicated), but I'd rather help remove this class of problem. Is the problem hosting sources on the internet, or storage of the sources at all? The GPL makes it clear that the only sane low-admin way is that THE sources must be with THE binaries or to make other formal arrangements to have them made available. Is the best solution going to be more hard disks sent to you, or more bandwidth sent to you? ("you" being the blessed gang who are doing all this) Sam |
-- ubuntu-backports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
