Re: Legal problems of unbuildable testing (Was: ... towards Debian 3.1)
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > And as I think I already mentionned several times, if we ship binaries
> > for a GPL'd, which cannot be rebuilt from the sources we ship, then
> > we're in violation of the GPL, since the binary obviously don't match
> > the sources.
> If we ship a new compiler that does optimisations slightly differently
> to the previous one, the binaries we built previously won't match the
> new compiler either. This isn't a reasonable argument, and wasting time
> worrying about it doesn't benefit our users even slightly.
GPL does not say you have to ship the build environment with the
source. You don't have to ship the system libraries or sources for the
same with it either. Its perfectly fine to shipd a binary thats
compiled by a non-free prorietary compiler noone else has access
to. No problems there.
How you get the source to build is your problem.
What is a licence problem is that Debian needs to ship the source to
all binaries. For hundreds of packages that is not available in sid.
Every time a new source version is uploaded 10 archs will be left with
binaries without source until the buildd catch up, which can be as
much as 400 days in the extreme.