Re: Non-free tarball checked in

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:21:52 -0500,
>  Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga <mattia.verga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not
>> > installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the
>> > source be purged from those?
>>
>> If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.
>
> Does that cover GPL binaries where we are sure we have the specific source
> versions that correspond to the binaries?
>
> For example pdf files, which I suspect might have been created from odt
> files, but I am not sure I can get the versions of the odt files that
> match the included pdf files?

IANAL but I would call the odt "source code" and the pdf "binary" but
just use the term "documentation" for either.
It is not a binary in the sense of "compiled code".
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux