Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?
On 12-Aug-1998, Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
> Darren Benham <gecko@benham.net> writes:
>
> I agree, the NPL license isn't a package we'd want other's to emulate (say,
> over GPL) but I'd say keeping the source packages around "long after" is a bit
> of an exageration.
> Only 6 months is required after we put out a new version, and if we keep a
> 3/year release cycle, that's only 2 months beyond the next release. We don't
> have a way to keep the previous releases source tree around?
>
> On 12-Aug-98 Richard Braakman wrote:
> > This means that if we distribute modified versions of an NPL'd
> > program, we're going to have to keep source packages around long after
> > we have replaced the binaries with new versions. We have no mechanism
> > in place for this.
> >
>
> What he means (I think) is that we have to keep previous *interim*
> versions around according to the NPL. i.e., if we have mozilla_5.0-1
> through mozilla_5.0-26, then we have to keep *all* of those around.
>
> Currently we *don't* have a mechanism for this. When -26 comes out,
> -1 through -25 are gone.
If you keep the sources under CVS and allow anonymous CVS access this
can fulfil your requirements. People can retreive any version of the
sources they want. And the changes in -1 and -25 are probably quite
small.
Even though it's probably going to cost some resources, keeping CVS
archives of everything is probably the way we will go in future anyway.
--
Tyson Dowd # "Bill Gates is a white persian cat and a monocle
# away from becoming another James Bond villan."
trd@cs.mu.oz.au # "No Mr Bond, I expect you to upgrade."
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~trd # -- Dennis Miller and Terri Branch
Reply to: