Matt Domsch wrote:
Fedora distributes code online under GNU GPLv2 paragraph 3a (source posted alongside and concurrent with binaries). Fedora also distributes binaries on CD and DVD (such as at trade shows) without necessarily handing out CDs and DVDs with the source code. For these instances I'd like to see a written source code offer per GPLv2 paragraph 3b. For Spins and derivatives, it would be nice for us to provide code under GPLv2 3b. This frees non-commercial Spins and derivatives from having to publish the (unchanged) source code on their own site or media - they can distribute under GPLv2 paragraph 3c and point at our 3b offer. This lowers the barrier to entry for Spins and derivatives.
This would also help respins that fold in updates to point to us for the source? Are we willing to let derivatives use Fedora infrastructure for their packages (temporary folks and such) assuming that they are under Free software licenses. There is already one example of this: OLPC but I was wondering if that was more of an exception rather than the norm.
Here's some text I think could go into a README-SOURCE file inside the fedora-release package, to land on CD/DVD media. I haven't passed this by a lawyer, and we'd want to do that. Thoughts?
Has anyone talked to FSF and got their input on how best to handle the requirements on source redistribution as well as specific interpretations on the terms if required?
Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
