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

Re: Where's the source of wanna-build?

Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> writes:

> [Ingo Juergensmann]
>> As I mentioned in my previous mail somewhere, it was fetched by a
>> separate repositry that is used for certain tasks, f.e. installing
>> and updating patched ssh, buildd, sbuild for autobuilders.
> Ah, I didn't notice that on my initial read.  I was so happy to see a
> package for buildd that I ran of to check it out at once. :/
>> So, I consider this archive as well "inside" of Debian.
> With this argument you could claim that all the packages distributed
> from peoples home directories are also "inside" of Debian.  I'm not
> sure if that is a valid argument.  Of course, you might consider
> whatever you want.  I'm just not too sure how many would agree with
> you here.

>From a legal point it certainly is. Debian (or rather the person
responsible for the server) is responsible for not doing something

>> Nevertheless the programs were released under GPL and the source is
>> missing.
> As far as I know the GPL, it only require that the source is available
> on request for three years after the binaries were distributed.

Dude, read your GPL.

The GPL requires:
  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Neither b nor c can be applied to an apt repository and has never been
used by Debian (Unless there is such an offer in the Release file or
something you might think up).

> I guess your email to debian-devel might be considered a request for
> the source, but I am not sure if you are sending it to the correct
> recipient. :)


Reply to: