Re: GPL violations [was Re: Suggestion: Skip Slink!]

[ijr@po.cwru.edu]

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.

Isaac