On 3/25/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2007, "Luis Villa" <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I believe non-commercial mirrors are not required to keep source. They > need only "accompany [the Program] with the information [they] > received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code." > (Sec. 3(c)). IANAL,
I'm not either, I just go to law school, *HUGE DIFFERENCE*. To remind everyone, you should run this by a real lawyer :)
but Fedora distributes code under 3(a) (sources along with binaries), not 3(b), so third-parties don't get to use 3(c), they must use either 3(a) or 3(b).
This is why I said later that Fedora should distribute sources under 3(b), not 3(a). (Though the two aren't mutually exclusive; it'd be more like '3(a) plus 3(b) offer.')
Using 3(a) means Fedora can blow away anything it carries any time it wants, no further requirements. Using 3(b) would mean we'd have to keep, at least internally, the corresponding sources of GPLed and LGPLed code in every binary released package, for at least 3 years after we take it out of the download site, just in case someone asks us for it. AFAIK, mirrors who carry our binaries without sources enter precisely this kind of obligation.
No, that is what 3(c) is for. Only Fedora carries the long-term storage requirements in that case. (And as far as I can see, if you're still distributing FC1, Fedora has no problem with nearly indefinite storage.) Luis (glad GPL v3 clears this confusion up) _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
