On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 13:36 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > Whomever distributes the binaries is responsible for ensuring source > is available, either concurrently (ideally)(such as GPLv2 3a), or via > offer-to-provide-source-on-media (GPLv2 3b). > > If binaries are not distributed from fedorahosted, then fedorahosted > is not responsible for providing source for any length of time. > > If binaries _are_ distributed from fedorahosted, e.g. compiled bits > put into releases/, then I would expect fedorahosted to concurrently > carry the source code used to build those binaries. Yes, this should > be fedorahosted policy. It keeps us 100% out of the GPLv2 3b time > bomb. I would think of Fedorahosted just as i would think of a paid colo facility. Just because I may have offered software for download via the colo facility, and then I terminate my account (either due to ending a contract, or breach of contract) doesn't put the colo facility on the legal hook for software I may have hosted there. Same goes for Fedorahosted. We can have a clear agreement as to what would breach one's "contract" with Fedorahosted, and that Fedorahosted is not responsible for any legal obligations regarding source availability. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
