| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
1152131291.21775.77.camel@×××××××××××××××××.net, excerpted below, on Wed, |
| 3 |
05 Jul 2006 16:28:10 -0400: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 08:51 -0700, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Every few months is a rough rate going by memory at 8:30am. Not huge, |
| 7 |
>> but as said, if need to provide access to gpl'd sources for bin (not |
| 8 |
>> just releng cds btw, people are forgetting we have precompiled pkgs in |
| 9 |
>> the tree also), it _is_ a potential route for handling that requirement |
| 10 |
>> while killing off another bit of manual work. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> How many of those -bin packages are GPL? I'm sure there's a few, but I |
| 13 |
> can't think of a single one. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Also, we don't have pre-compiled packages in the tree. We have ebuilds |
| 16 |
> that pull down pre-compiled packages. That's easily fixable with a |
| 17 |
> RESTRICT=mirror for the few that are GPL and binary. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> ...and then I decided to actually look at the one package that I thought |
| 20 |
> about, and it's mplayer-bin, though we do provide those sources, since it |
| 21 |
> is just the mplayer ebuild compiled, and we have the sources for the |
| 22 |
> source-based ebuild already. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The thing is, for precompiled tree stuff, if it's GPL, we already have |
| 25 |
sources, and the sources version and bin version should come and go from |
| 26 |
the tree more or less together. As long as it's "more" (or should I say |
| 27 |
"most" =8^) , having them both in the tree together pretty much directly |
| 28 |
satisfies condition 3a -- which doesn't require holding onto them for |
| 29 |
three years after the binary ceases to be distributed, unlike 3b, |
| 30 |
on-request. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
BTW, that's the potential down side to the CD/DVD of sources on request |
| 33 |
idea, too. That means sources must be available for three years /after/ |
| 34 |
the binaries are no longer distributed. If sources are made available |
| 35 |
with the binaries, they can cease to be made available with them. If |
| 36 |
sources are only available on request, they must be made available on |
| 37 |
request for three years. Do we want that three-year obligation and is it |
| 38 |
worth that to make it on-request vs having them available at the same |
| 39 |
time? I don't know, but it needs to be considered. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
An example tree package would be grub-static. A number of the |
| 42 |
emul-linux-x86-* packages are also GPL, including at least baselibs, |
| 43 |
qtlibs, compat, sdl. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Also, the amd64 project distributed was it binary gcc or glibc or both at |
| 46 |
least for some of their historic profile changes, to help with the |
| 47 |
multilib conversion. Now, being historic those may be a lost cause, but |
| 48 |
something similar may happen in the future. glibc is lgpl not gpl but |
| 49 |
does the lgpl have similar conditions. In any event, gcc does as it's |
| 50 |
dual licensed, but according to the ebuilds we are distributing it under |
| 51 |
both licenses, so the gpl conditions would apply. Whether other dual |
| 52 |
bitness archs have done similar or whether this applies to only amd64, I |
| 53 |
don't know. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 59 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 60 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives