Heads up, slight tree path change

[Rahul Sundaram]

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