On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:48:32 -0600 Matt Domsch <matt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > And really, that's OK. We don't have to provide exactly the same > SRPM. We have to provide the sources that went into the binary. If > we provide that in a convenient SRPM form, that's fine - that's easy > for our existing tools to consume. But we could post directories full > of look-aside cache tarballs and patches if we wanted to. Whatever we do, I want /extremely/ clear interpretation of which ever GPL distribution method we choose to use. v2 3b/c are extremely vague and I have severe issues with using them. v3 is not exactly better in this regard. v2 3a is clear. v3 6a is pretty clear, and would apply to handing out media at trade shows or via free media. v3 6d is pretty clear and applies to how we do things today, except that it makes it more clear that you can rely on some other party to host your source, with the caveat that if the 3rd party goes away, you're still responsible for making those sources available. v3 6e clarifies bittorrent like distribution in that using v3 6d for source in conjunction with v3 6e for binary is OK, provided that you make 6e users aware of the location of 6d. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
