On 06/14/2014 12:58 AM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
The reason to release them at all is to comply with the GPL. Such
encumbrances would thwart that compliance.
Red Hat only has to directly distribute source to the people to whom
they have distributed binaries to meet the letter of the GPL,
On 06/14/2014 12:58 AM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
The reason to release them at all is to comply with the GPL. Such
encumbrances would thwart that compliance.
[Separate reply, since this is a different branch of thought.]
Point me to publicly available, no login-required, source RPMs for the
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On 06/14/2014 12:58 AM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
The reason to release them at all is to comply with the GPL. Such
encumbrances would thwart that compliance.
Red Hat only has to directly distribute source
Not just the
(different topic, different reply)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
The various spec files include the release numbers, and you can track
the spec files with their commit IDs.
Could you be more specific? In particular, is there a reliable,
automated procedure
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
So, somewhat paradoxically, I would have a greater confidence in source from
git than source from a signed source RPM, again due to git's design. Yeah,
I know, it's not what we're used to, and there is a bit of information that
