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

Re: Where's the source of wanna-build?



On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 07:20:42AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

> Dude, read your GPL.

> The GPL requires:
>   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.)

> Neither b nor c can be applied to an apt repository and has never been
> used by Debian (Unless there is such an offer in the Release file or
> something you might think up).

<harumph>  And among those things that the GPL *doesn't* say is, "The
source code for a work means a Debian source package."  Almost all the
contents of the buildd package are written in a scripting language of
some sort, with the exception of a single compiled wrapper.

> From a legal point it certainly is. Debian (or rather the person
> responsible for the server) is responsible for not doing something
> illegal.

While it's reasonable to request access to source code for the wrapper,
it seems a gross overreaction to talk about its omission being
"illegal", when it's just as likely that the copyright file has
misattributed authorship to Roman of a wrapper that James wrote (in
which case he's within his rights to engage in binary-only distribution
of a work he's placed under the GPL).

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: