On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 00:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Yes, and under this license we would still have to keep those sources around > for a year *after* we stop distributing woody in binary form. And provide > for backups & network reliability, since losing our copy would leave us in > violation of the license. Given that archive space has been a big issue for > us over the past year, I don't see how you can assume this is "trivial". As I said, making the source available from a single location would probably satisfy the requirement. For instance, promoting snapshot.debian.net to official status and devoting some resources to ensuring its reliability would help satisfy the requirement while providing many other benefits at the same time. > Wow, you think it's "prudent" to rely on an external organization with whom > you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license? Most > businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would either. The "reasonably prudent steps" refer to the requirement to "... ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute ...". Such steps could be, for example, to donate money to Debian via SPI, earmarked something like "for the support of Debian archive infrastructure, to ensure source is always available". In the event Debian removes the source in violation of the license, then "reasonably prudent steps" would be for the CD vendor to set up a source mirror instead. I suspect most CD vendors do not keep a complete source mirror of the GNU FDL material they sell on their CDs (Debian or otherwise). Cheers, -- Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part