Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:48:32 -0600
> Matt Domsch <matt at domsch.com> wrote:
> 
>> And really, that's OK.  We don't have to provide exactly the same
>> SRPM.  We have to provide the sources that went into the binary.  If
>> we provide that in a convenient SRPM form, that's fine - that's easy
>> for our existing tools to consume.  But we could post directories full
>> of look-aside cache tarballs and patches if we wanted to.
> 
> 
> Whatever we do, I want /extremely/ clear interpretation of which ever
> GPL distribution method we choose to use.  v2 3b/c are extremely vague
> and I have severe issues with using them.  v3 is not exactly better in
> this regard.  v2 3a is clear.  v3 6a is pretty clear, and would apply
> to handing out media at trade shows or via free media.  v3 6d is pretty
> clear and applies to how we do things today, except that it makes it
> more clear that you can rely on some other party to host your source,
> with the caveat that if the 3rd party goes away, you're still
> responsible for making those sources available.  v3 6e clarifies
> bittorrent like distribution in that using v3 6d for source in
> conjunction with v3 6e for binary is OK, provided that you make 6e
> users aware of the location of 6d.
> 

I wasn't aware that potentially distributing via GPLv3 
<whatever-section> was in the picture too, but from what I understand v3 
6d in combination with any form of the Fedora Project making the sources 
available for a (limited) period of time would mean that:

1) it's very clear
2) downstream can point to sources hosted by the Fedora Project
3) sources do not have to be stored 3 years, but (for example) a one 
release lifecycle

If possible, this certainly looks like a winner.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip