Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
- From: Michelle Konzack <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:37:19 +0100
- Message-id: <20051117123718.GB347@freenet.de>
- In-reply-to: <20051108163626.GA3821@cascardo.localdomain>
- References: <20051108123707.GA14603@cascardo.localdomain> <1131457867.6130.3.camel@mordor> <20051108135704.GA14822@cascardo.localdomain> <20051108163626.GA3821@cascardo.localdomain>
bizzar name you have...
Am 2005-11-08 14:36:26, schrieb firstname.lastname@example.org:
> That's also my non-lawyer's opinion. What I will say is some reasoning
> about requiring the same terms for copying binaries and source. Not
> following them by the word may be mere toleration by the copyright
> holder or because the distributor makes sure source distribution
> occurs when it is requested.
Who need the whole Sourcecode for a Distribution ?
Imagine, there is a Distributor which limited Diskspace on the Web/
FTP-Server and the bandwidth is sponsored...
Imagine 10.000 peoples want to compile one little tool of some kByte
(like me with ssmtp) with another options...
Insteed of downloading some kByte, the need to fetch a 650 MByte Image
where 649,95 MByte are useless...
Asking for downloadable source images ia associal if the source mirror
is publich availlable or source CD can be ordered fro distributor.
> But why? Why should the offer for copying the source be made in the
> same terms as the copying of the binaries? Because a distributor may
> make it difficult for someone to get the sources. It may put the
No, it is difficult to MOST users to get sources, if they ARE on CD.
MOST user need only singel source packages, but whole binary CD's for
> sources on a machine with low bandwidth, which would take a thousand
> times the time to download the binary. Or else it may put the source
Yeah, put the source into a seperate directory and use mod_throttle :-P
> behind a proprietary protocol, which would require the installation of
> some software under some unreasonable license (imagine one which only
> allows its use if you do not develop software for the same purposes).
This is stupid!
<stupid things erased>
> That's why you should offer an *equivalent* access to the sources in
> the *same* place.
IF you can FTP binary CD's it is enough, if you can get singel source
packages from the same site (distributor not physicaly one)
> Any disagreements and comments are welcome. Remember I have the
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/88452356 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)