[ Please don't Cc: public replies to me. ]
James LewisMoss:
> Actually this is the point. The GPL says we have to be able to
> provide sources for _3_years_ of our modified versions. This is the
> problem that a CVS repository is trying to fix. We literally do need
> to keep _every_ _version_ around for three years following our release
> of it.
The GPL says:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Debian tries to do a), so we do not need to do b). The CVS repository
may be nice, but it is not necessary for the GPL. The current problem
is that we do have binary packages with no corresponding source package,
and this should be disallowed by policy, if it isn't already.
(I'm not against someone setting up a CVS server with all Debian sources,
but there's no need in doing it because of the GPL.)
Attachment:
pgpMYQev3HM6x.pgp
Description: PGP signature