[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13



Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:48:32 -0600
Matt Domsch <matt 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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]