On Nov 21, 2007 2:16 PM, Matt Domsch <matt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Without putting words in people's mouths, including a time frame is > consistent with my conversation with Brett Smith of the FSF. We've pretty much come to the point where we have to have a legal ruling as to which if any GPLv2 or v3 "offer" clauses are consistent with the idea of a pre-defined time frame. The discussion of whether or not we want to make use or encourage the use of any such clause can't move forward until we know if setting an explicit time frame as part of an offer does really set a limit of the project's burden to provide source. I've long ago given up the notion that common-sense makes any sense when applied to legalese. In the mean time we have to do something with regard to source availability for at least the media images that we host. And I still would like to see us implement srpm re-generation on demand to help aid consumers get source for a reasonable period of time (that is above and beyond the strict legal requirements) for releases,updates,updates-testing and even rawhide. -jef _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
