| 1 |
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 12:47, Mivz wrote: |
| 2 |
> So that would not be when a stage 3 install cd for the Overlay tree is |
| 3 |
> published? Because that cd contains binary precomplied packages. |
| 4 |
Well, IANAL and as Stuart said the last word is up to trustees, but from my |
| 5 |
understanding, as long as the overlay contains only ebuilds, it has to be |
| 6 |
treated as a source-only repository. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
In the moment you release a stage or a CD out of that overlay, you have to |
| 9 |
comply to GPL for the ebuilds, which means that the overlay has to be |
| 10 |
available, and for the GPL software released in the stage/CD. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The main difference that I can see from Debian (and based distributions) is |
| 13 |
that their packages are built out of the original sources (that might and |
| 14 |
might not be GPL) and their debian/ directory (that is GPL). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As I said, IANAL and I'm speaking only for myself not for anyone else. I only |
| 17 |
try to apply some logic to the text of GNU's GPL... although seems like logic |
| 18 |
is overestimated with some people as we now see, unfortunately. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If we have to resort to lawyers just to get a distro going, I think there's |
| 21 |
something entirely wrong with what the free software is today. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ |
| 25 |
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE |
Archives