Re: GPL violations [was Re: Suggestion: Skip Slink!]
On 06-Jan-99 Avery Pennarun wrote:
> To clarify the problem: we never have packages without source, only
> packages without the _exact_ source that an old binary might have used, and
> then only if one architecture uses a different package than another. I
> consider that a problem (it's nice to know _exactly_ what source your binary
> came from) but not a serious one (if you really care, you can rebuild a
> binary from the latest source). This is non-ideal, but IMHO not critical.
> Even as a security concerned sysadmin (which I am) it doesn't bother me.
So you're saying there are binary packages without the "corresponding source
code" being distributed? Herm... Seems pretty critical to me, as this is
exactly what the GPL requires.