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

Bug#30340: marked as done (Draft new DFSG - r1.4)

Your message dated Fri, 4 Apr 2008 20:52:18 +0200
with message-id <20080404185218.GA15595@benz.df7cb.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#30340: Draft new DFSG - r1.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #30340,
regarding Draft new DFSG - r1.4
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
30340: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=30340
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: project

Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4"):
> On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >  i. When distribution is made by public anonymous download, the
> > licence restriction is satisfied if the source code is made available
> > on the same site as the executable, at all times when the executable
> > is available.
> 
> We don't actually assure that. We have binary-only mirrors, binary-only
> CD's and we have binaries in the archive that do not have source for their
> exact versions.

Then we are violating the GPL.  In particular, a binary-only mirror
cannot meet the letter of the GPL.  If you want to dispute this,
please do so on debian-legal.

We must (ie, are legally required) do one of the following:

(a) throw out all GPL'd software;

(b) persuade RMS to remove the `from the same place' restriction in
the GPL electronic distribution clause;

(c) contact all copyright holders of all GPL'd software in our
distribution to get permission from them.

(d) stop having binary-only mirrors.

Which do you think we should do ?

Hint: only (d) is feasible in the short term.  (b) might be feasible
later.  (a) and (c) are totally out of the question.

I think we should do (d).

With this message, I have filed a bug.

Ian.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Re: Santiago Vila 1998-12-03 <Pine.LNX.3.96.981203210534.6701A-100000@cantor.unex.es>
> This would mean that we would have to keep the source in ftp.debian.org
> for three years.

We do offer source indefinitely long on archive.debian.org.

> Is this more feasible than making all the binary mirrors to disappear?

I'm not aware of any, let alone official ones. Closing this bug.

Christoph
-- 
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: