Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:51:40 +0100
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What's this? Should I now say: "Please do 3b/c because it's money
better spent then trying to avoid it at all costs" ??
I have no idea how to parse that.
In my opinion, targetting 3b/c is very dangerous for Fedora as an
upstream, as it is entirely too vague and could easily land us in a
trap where every single source ever to pass through our build system
must be always available in the same location from now until
eternity. /That/ is what I'd like to avoid.
Right, even in more realistic extremes that is a situation we need to
avoid, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the option on beforehand.
GPLv2 3b/c says you put out an offer in which the instructions are to
obtain the sources and that any non-commercial party can forward that
offer. So, if that offer says:
"The sources of Fedora 8 and it's updates are available as of November
8th 2007, for a period of 4 years and one month, to be downloaded from
d.f.r.c" -obviously without the legal speak...
then what is so dangerous?
How can something you say you find so vague and without any real
precedence be so dangerous if complied upon? - This may be my ignorance
speaking, but it's a serious question; I don't see it.
At the very least we could be looking at answering two questions:
1) What's the deal with GPLv2 3b, can we use it for released
non-development stuff (built, signed and pushed out to the mirrors) only
and let the rest be as it is now.
2) Can we distribute under the more explicit GPLv3 and what would be
it's best option.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
