Jesse Keating wrote:
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.
I wasn't aware that potentially distributing via GPLv3
<whatever-section> was in the picture too, but from what I understand v3
6d in combination with any form of the Fedora Project making the sources
available for a (limited) period of time would mean that:
1) it's very clear
2) downstream can point to sources hosted by the Fedora Project
3) sources do not have to be stored 3 years, but (for example) a one
release lifecycle
If possible, this certainly looks like a winner.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
