Bug#30340: Draft new DFSG - r1.4

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Package: project
> 
> Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4"):
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >  i. When distribution is made by public anonymous download, the
> > > licence restriction is satisfied if the source code is made available
> > > on the same site as the executable, at all times when the executable
> > > is available.
> > 
> > We don't actually assure that. We have binary-only mirrors, binary-only
> > CD's and we have binaries in the archive that do not have source for their
> > exact versions.
> 
> Then we are violating the GPL.  In particular, a binary-only mirror
> cannot meet the letter of the GPL.  If you want to dispute this,
> please do so on debian-legal.

I would like to dispute this:

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:

[...]

    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.)

[...]

 If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
 access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
 access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
 distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
 compelled to copy the source along with the object code.



Please note that this last paragraph says that "offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place" *counts*
as distribution of the source code, but it does not say that it is
*mandatory* to do it that way, in particular it does not invalidate
paragraph "c)".


Therefore I think we could do the following:


In  ftp://ftp.debian.org/pub/debian we put a README.source
saying:

   Source code is available at:

   ftp://ftp.debian.org/pub/debian/dists/stable/main/source

Then, in the mirrors, we accompany all the .deb files with the information
the mirror maintainer received as to the offer to distribute corresponding
source code, namely:

   "I received this information to receive the source code:

   Source code is available at

   ftp://ftp.debian.org/pub/debian/dists/stable/main/source";


This way, we distribute source code using different methods 
for ftp.debian.org and for its mirrors:


In ftp.debian.org, we offer access to copy the source
code from the same place the binaries are.

In the mirrors, we put the required information.



Does not this make sense?

-- 
 "2658febd8098cfb93aadd32700a04b4e" (a truly random sig)