On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 18:06 -0500, Sean wrote: > On Sun, March 13, 2005 1:59 pm, Paul Iadonisi said: > > I'm afraid I have to agree with Jeff here, Paul.<g> Well...I don't! So there! ;-) > No, you're only required to provide 3 year availability if you neglect to > distribute source code along with object code in the first place. Notice > that section 3b of the GPLv2 is not enforced if distribution is carried > out in accordance with section 3a. Ah. I'll have to take a closer look at that. Makes sense, though. It *seemed* to me that Red Hat was in compliance, but it's not like I read the GPL that often, so I was recalling the part about making it available for three years, but not the other relevant parts. Who would read it often? Like any license, it's written in drab legalese. > Anyone who sees a need for this service could provide it for themselves or > for others. There was at least one mirror that had two or three (or more) revs back, but for the life of me I can't remember which one, and haven't been able to find it again. > But developers probably have less of a need for this than > testers do. Possibly. I suppose developers can always use cvs to get what they need. But that still leaves out the problem of older official updates to releases disappearing. I'll see if I can find that mirror that kept multiple revs of rpms in rawhide...maybe it also had multiple revs back in the updates as well. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
