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

Re: Legal problems of unbuildable testing (Was: ... towards Debian 3.1)

On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 07:13:51AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 03:04:55AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > 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.

> > We do ship the source for all these packages, it's simply not listed in
> > the the Sources.gz file. We've been doing this ever since we switched
> > to the pool/ structure almost three years ago. As an example, the perl
> > 5.8.2-1 source is only being kept around in the pool because perl on
> > mipsel is out of date. galeon seems to be in a similar
> > situation.

> Oh, thats news to me. That means any deb without source is an actual
> bug that someone should care about and not just time skews. I guess I
> have to start a little shell script to hunt for those then.

> But it could still be interpreted as a GPL violation. Source has to be
> provided the same way binaries are.

These words are not present in the text of the GPL.  The only
requirement the GPL imposes is that the source code "accompanies" the
binaries.  The source code does "accompany" the binaries, on all of our
mirror sites.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: