Andrew Haley wrote:
Douglas McClendon writes:
> Then the final question of course would be, since derivative
> distros of this nature are using binaries actually built by fedora,
> will fedora be willing to go the extra mile and offer written
> assurance to keep the source rpms available for 3 years, or
> whatever the whole fallout from the gpl-derivative-distro thread of
> recent history was.
>
> I mean, it seems plain silly to force derivative distros, that are
> using binaries compiled and provided by fedora, to maintain a
> mirror of the source rpms. Especially if as above, the yum configs
> in the derivative distros are pointing at fedora servers anyway.
Tough. It's what the GPL says. If you supply someone with a binary,
you have to supply the source. You can't point someone somewhere else
and say "the source is over there, get it yourself".
You can in some circumstances do exactly that. A derivative distribution
can very well point to the upstream distribution as the canonical source
if the upstream distribution agrees to it explicitly.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
