Re: MPL and Source Code
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:13:24 -0400
> Anthony DeRobertis <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Craig Southeren wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what an NMU is, but why are these not put into the SVN
> > > archive?
> > >
> > A NMU (non-maintainer upload) is an upload by a person who is not the
> > maintainer of the package. Reasons for this happening are numerous;
> > trivial example is an urgent fix when the maintainer is on vacation, is
> > missing, is too busy, etc. An NMU would often not be put in the revision
> > control archive because the person doing the NMU does not have commit
> > access to said repository.
> Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't
> see this as a problem.
1) Not necessarily.
2) It's not appropriate for us to be violating the licence until someone
gets around to importing the NMU into the repository (assuming it ever does
> > > Because if it is Debian policy to distribute binaries where the source
> > > code is not guaranteed to be publically available, then yes, I think
> > > that could be a problem regardless of whether the license is MPL or GPL.
> > >
> > The source code is guaranteed to be publicly available for as long as
> > the binary is, but no longer.
> This is in violation of most Open Source licenses.
> For example, the GPL requires source to be available on demand for up to
> three years after distribution of the binary by electronic means.
No. It. Doesn't.