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

Re: Heads up, slight tree path change

Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:51:55 -0500
Douglas McClendon <dmc fedora filteredperception org> wrote:

- to include the fedora-release rpm (not fedora-logos) in a
derivative distribution?

The naming of it is probably suspect.  With Test2, fedora-release will
grow a Provides: system-release so that things can switch over to
requiring that instead of either 'fedora' release or 'redhat' release.
This means you can do a drop-in replacement named whatever, so long as
it also provides system-release.

Sounds good.

If not, what I am more specifically interested in, is the fedora rpm
gpg key, and the yum configurations that point at fedora servers.

That's fine, you'd probably also want to add in your key and repo
definitions for what makes you different than Fedora.

Of course.

In some sense, this facilitates derivative distributions 'leeching' resources from fedora. But it seems like this is currently allowed,
and given the moves to encourage derivative distros, I suspect fedora
does not have a problem with this.

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.

3 years is a long time to make such a promise, especially considering
that you may pick up updates and not the release bits.  Our updates
definitely don't sit for 3 years, they're only around until they're
replaced by a later update.  To keep each and every update around for 3
years is a /lot/ of data.

The 3 years is a number that gets referenced to _a lot_ in this highly relevent discussion-


I suggest that if fedora wants to encourage derivative distributions, that a wiki/faq gets put up, which very specifically addresses the issues discussed in the above slashdot thread.

It's just easier if you're going to go the step of publicly
distributing a derivative to host the srpms you ship with your
binaries, or near your binaries.  That way when you're done with the
binaries and no longer wish to distribute them, you can bring
them /and/ the source down, as you won't be obligated to keep the
source around for any other amount of time.

I wasn't really concerned with the issue of source matching binaries on a fedora derivative that _differ_ from the binaries that are in fedora proper. That will no doubt only represent a very small fraction of the derivative distribution. What I am worried about is whether there is any legal requirement for the deriver, to host the same sources that fedora is already hosting. I believe that somewhere in the thread above, is the suggestion that a derivative distro, if not wanting to be obliged to host *all* the source rpms, must get some sort of explicit written promise from the upstream distro, that the upstream distro will host the source rpms for X amount of time (where X==3years?).

The whole reason the slashdot thread was interesting, is because it is rather strange to begin with, since one would assume that the upstream provider already has the legal obligation. I suspect the issue was to prevent a scenario where an upstream provider goes belly-up/disappears, and then the downstream deriver that didn't bother to mirror a copy, cannot legally satisfy their own obligations under the GPL.

IANAL, so I may be completely butchering the issue.


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