On Monday 30 September 2013 08:36:50 Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: > On Sunday 29 September 2013 22:26:41 Olivier Goffart wrote: > > As we do not modify those files, but take them from upstream, having a > > README that say where the file are from is enough. > > I don't see why it should be part of the tarball. (and especially they > > should not be in the git repositories) > > The "problem" is that (L)GPL requires to offer the _exact_ _same_ sources > that were used to build the binary (or intermediate source). Just pointing > to a URL usually gives the user access to the _current_ upstream sources - > speaking as a user: it is no fun trying to compile (legacy) stuff for hours > only to find out that one of the first support libraries was an > incompatible version and not the one I needed. > > In short: providing the tarballs of the _exact_ upstream sources that were > used along the Qt tarballs is the easiest way of ensuring we fulfill our > obligations under (L)GPL and making sure users have what they need.
Plus the benefit that if the source is needed more than once, we can point to a "canonical" version for developers to check. This is of course convenience, not a requirement. -- Yo quiero conocer el pensamiento de Dios, el resto son detalles. Albert Einstein Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
