[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Package Pool Proposal

On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 07:39:50PM +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote:

> "The offer to distribute corresponding source code" is the *WRITTEN*
> offer mentionned in paragraph (b).

that's YOUR interpretation. that is not actually stated in (c), so it
is a flawed assumption - and your conclusions which are based on it are
also flawed.

in any case, this whole sub-thread is an irrelevant tangent, caused by
the false assumption that everyone who mirrors debian does so for the
purpose of distributing it. i'd hazard a guess that the majority of
people who mirror debian do so to maintain their own private mirror to
keep their own machines up to date.

also, if someone who mirrors debian for re-distribution fails to honour
the terms of the GPL then that is their responsibility - nothing at all
to do with Debian.  If debian is doing the right thing by making sources
available, then there's nothing more we can do and nothing more that we
have to do - we are not responsible for what anyone downstream of us
chooses to do.

however the debian ftp archive is re-organised, we should not make it
harder to mirror only the binaries. for most users, binaries are all
that is needed except for a tiny handful of programs that they might
like/need to compile themselves - they shouldn't be forced to mirror
gigabytes of source code that they will never need or want.

by all means, it should be easy to mirror both sources and binaries
if that's what the recipient wants...but it should be equally easy to
mirror only the binaries, or only the sources.


craig sanders

Reply to: