Craig Southeren wrote:
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:13:32 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Southeren wrote:
This means theoretically that the lifetime of a source release under the
GPL is the same as a binary release. Once the binary is no longer
distributed, then the
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..deleted
The MPL states 12 months, and the GPL had three years (for certain
methods of distribution) but I don't know of any license that required
100 years. I agree that any such period of time would be unfairly
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:29:37PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally
distribute MPLed
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:42:49 +0300
Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:29:37PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
Craig Southeren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:42:49 +0300
Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:29:37PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you have successfully
Craig Southeren wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the Debian CVS/SVN server meets the definition and would most
likely satisfy the license, though it could potentially cause problems
for our mirror operators.
I don't see why.
Craig Southeren wrote:
This means theoretically that the lifetime of a source release under the
GPL is the same as a binary release. Once the binary is no longer
distributed, then the source no longer has to be distributed either.
As a user, the seems more than a little unreasonable, but if
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:13:32 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Southeren wrote:
This means theoretically that the lifetime of a source release under the
GPL is the same as a binary release. Once the binary is no longer
distributed, then the source no longer has to be
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is not the only issue with the MPL -- as Mike Hommey recently
reminded -legal, there are others[1]. [...]
[1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Don't trust everything you read so much. That draft summary was
written by a newbie
Craig Southeren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:22:31 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:54:53PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
A problem would only occur if there was a Debian release that contained
source code that is is not in
El lunes, 3 de abril de 2006 a las 13:02:58 +1000, Craig Southeren escribía:
If Debian is not ensuring that all source code for it's distribution is
publically available via it's archives, then I agree that this is not
only a problem for Debian, but it is definitaly a problem for downstream
Scripsit Craig Southeren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But the same licenses that provide this freedom requires the distributor
to make the source code available for the appropriate period regardless
of what the upstream developer does.
For free software, the appropriate period is exactly as long as
Craig Southeren wrote:
I'm not sure what an NMU is, but why are these not put into the SVN
archive?
A NMU (non-maintainer upload) is an upload by a person who is not the
maintainer of the package. Reasons for this happening are numerous;
trivial example is an urgent fix when the maintainer
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:13:24 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Southeren wrote:
I'm not sure what an NMU is, but why are these not put into the SVN
archive?
A NMU (non-maintainer upload) is an upload by a person who is not the
maintainer of the package. Reasons
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
Because if it is Debian policy to distribute binaries where the source
code is not guaranteed to be publically available, then yes, I think
that could be a problem regardless of whether the license is MPL or GPL.
The
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:13:24 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Southeren wrote:
I'm not sure what an NMU is, but why are these not put into the SVN
archive?
A NMU (non-maintainer upload) is
Craig Southeren wrote:
Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't
see this as a problem.
Merging the NMU into the repository is up to the maintainer (he is,
after all, the one with commit access). Given Debian's persistent
problems with MIA maintainers, it —
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:03:37 -0700
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
Because if it is Debian policy to distribute binaries where the source
code is not guaranteed to be publically available, then yes, I think
that
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:15:05 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Southeren wrote:
Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't
see this as a problem.
Merging the NMU into the repository is up to the maintainer (he is,
after all, the one
Craig Southeren writes:
[snip]
Section 3 of the GPL states that the source code for a binary-only
distribution must be available on demand for three years.
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
To all,
OK - I've just gone through and re-re-re-read the posts, and I think I
now see the point everyone is making:
1) The GPL provide three alternate and equivalent delivery mechanisms
for binary distributions. Only one of them (physical delivery of media
as defines in 3b) has a time limit
On 04 Apr 2006 00:04:32 -0400
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..deleted
[snip]
The MPL specifies (see para 3.2) that source must be provided via an
agreed Electronic Distribution Mechanism, which is defined as (see
para 1.4) ...a mechanism generally accepted in the software
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:51:05PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
This means theoretically that the lifetime of a source release under the
GPL is the same as a binary release. Once the binary is no longer
distributed, then the source no longer has to be distributed either.
As a user, the seems
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:22:50PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:03:37 -0700
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
Because if it is Debian policy to distribute binaries where the source
code is
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:36:42PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:15:05 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Southeren wrote:
Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't
see this as a problem.
Merging the NMU
Reading your previous posts about MPL, seems that the main problem MPL
presents is that Debian does not keep source code for every change at
least 6 months, as required in point 3.2.
While this can be true for MPL packages being only in the archive it
is not if the package is being
Reading your previous posts about MPL, seems that the main problem MPL
presents is that Debian does not keep source code for every change at
least 6 months, as required in point 3.2.
While this can be true for MPL packages being only in the archive it
is not if the package is being maintained
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:55:01 +0200
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading your previous posts about MPL, seems that the main problem MPL
presents is that Debian does not keep source code for every change at
least 6 months, as required in point 3.2.
While this can be
Craig Southeren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:55:01 +0200
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading your previous posts about MPL, seems that the main problem MPL
presents is that Debian does not keep source code for every change at
least 6 months, as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not the only issue with the MPL -- as Mike Hommey recently
Other people disagree. Reality is, the tests are not part of the DSFG
and people like you so far have not managed to persuade the ftpmasters
that choice of venue clauses violate the DFSG.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:54:53PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
A problem would only occur if there was a Debian release that contained
source code that is is not in the SVN archive. Does this ever occur?
Security updates and NMU's come to mind.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On 02 Apr 2006 08:15:50 -0400
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..deleted
This is not the only issue with the MPL -- as Mike Hommey recently
reminded -legal, there are others[1]. GPL section 3(b) is considered
non-free in itself, but it is one of several options; a distributor
may
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:33:02AM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
The MPL has the same requirement as the GPL regard distribution, i.e.
distrbution of source on the same same media fulfills the license terms.
For electronic distrbution, the terms are met by the historical nature
of the SVN
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:54:53PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
A problem would only occur if there was a Debian release that contained
source code that is is not in the SVN archive. Does this ever occur?
Security updates and NMU's come to mind.
As do non-Debian
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 19:28:26 -0700
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:54:53PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
A problem would only occur if there was a Debian release that contained
source code that is is not in the SVN archive. Does
35 matches
Mail list logo
