Re: DFSG and GPL -- source retention
On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > >This is what you're suggesting a binary-only mirror do. But, right
> > >now we have no 3b mirrors, so there is no written offer to pass on.
> Robert Woodcock <email@example.com> wrote:
> > None? Egads. Nothing on any of the web pages, any of the MOTD's on ftp
> > sites, nothing?
> Well, let me put it this way: I've not seen any binary-only mirrors
> republishing a notice that the source for their binaries will be available
> for three years at such-and-such location.
This is silly.
binary-only mirrors fall under this clause:
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.
And to understand why you accept that 'the place' is 'the internet' so
'the same place' is 'any internet site' and 'equivalent access' mean anon
controls basically. I belive this has been an accepted meaning, you might
want to ask RMS.
Anyone downloading a package from a binary-only mirror has internet access
and thus equivilant access to a mirror that does carry sources. We do not
need notices or require keeping packages for 3 years to satisfy
binary-only mirrors. We do need to keep releases for 3 years to help
binary-only CD vendors.