[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs 23.4 Updated Windows Binaries published

From: Lennart Borgman
Subject: Re: Emacs 23.4 Updated Windows Binaries published
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:47:29 +0100

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 08:12, Stephen J. Turnbull <address@hidden> wrote:
> Lennart Borgman writes:
>  > I can't see that this in a legal way prevents from pointing to sources
>  > that is not owned by the distributor.
> What's unclear about

Just what I said above. But the answer from Richard that Paul just
pointed to (http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=10656#23) is
very clear.

In fact I think it confirm that sources can be elsewhere.

However it requires a legal arrangement that the sources elsewhere
will be available for the time required. And Richard says that such
arrangements are not made by FSF.

I am not sure that is the best way to handle it, but I am sure Richard
has good reasons for it. Maybe setting up some kind of DOI-like system
would be a better idea long term.

>  > And when it comes to making the code easily accessible would not
>  > something like DOI be useful? (http://www.doi.org/)
> No, you're missing the point here.  Any old source won't do.  The
> exact source used to produce the binaries you offer, including any
> script etc. required to produce the same binaries, must be provided.
> Sure, you *could* use DOI to point to that, but if you fail to update
> the DOI pointer when you upgrade the binary, you're in violation of
> the GPL.

There could be a DOI-like pointer for exactly those sources used.

> So this really doesn't save you anything, except a few bytes
> of disk space and a few CPU cycles.  The human effort required is the
> same.  One Make target can automatically (1) produce the binary, (2)
> tar and upload the source, and (3) tar and upload the binary,
> automatically satisfying the GPL requirements in this respect.  Thus,
> the GPL requirements are *not* burdensome, given modern prices for CPU
> and disk, and even bandwidth (you can always offer a "stealth primary"
> for both object and source to selected mirrors, and let the general
> public download from those mirrors).

An easier way is perhaps to clone the sources to a new place in the
repository (or another repository).

In a way that actually is something like a DOI-system since the cloned
sources gets a new identifier.

Thanks for the thoughts. I think it is all clear to me now. (If I did
not misunderstood... ;-)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]