[gobolinux-users] OT: Source repositories and other suggestions

Sean E. Russell gobo at ser1.net
Sun Nov 26 15:43:03 UTC 2006

On Friday 24 November 2006 19:54, MJ Ray wrote:
> "Andy Feldman" <nereusren at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then, once a copy of the source was located (ideally from an archive
> > kept by the dev in charge of the package store), the binary package
> > could be distributed again. No?
> Lawyer or not, "No?" is a silly question.  If I answer "Yes", does
> that mean "Yes, No" or "No, Yes"?

One might say that it is the answer that would be silly, not the question.  An 
unambiguous answer would be "Yes, the binary package could be distributed 
again."  "No" isn't any more silly than "Is she not pretty," or "Haven't I 
seen you before," or "Are you going to eat that last piece of Possum Pie, or 
not?"  What does a terse "yes" answer mean to any of these mean?

It is odd that English is one of the rare languages that doesn't have a short, 
unambiguous construct for "is this true" which is why it is so easy to inject 
ambiguity into a question.

> Anyway, sources should be kept alongside any GPL thing which has
> binary packages and there should be source accompanying the binary
> ISO.

Agreed.  This will discourage binary distribution, since it adds significant 
resources to maintaining said binaries.

> Recipes are not a problem GPL-wise in general: instructions for how to
> use the source is not a derived work.

Again, agreed.

> I'm no lawyer either (see sig), but that's my understanding.

I am neither, but I play one on the internet.

The recipes are analogous to deep-linking, and I'd be surprised if any lawyer 
could argue that this level of indirection violates the GPL.


### SER   
### Deutsch|Esperanto|Francaise|Linux|XML|Java|Ruby|Aikido|Iaido
### http://www.ser1.net  jabber.com:ser  ICQ:83578737 
### GPG: http://www.ser1.net/Security/ser_public.gpg

More information about the gobolinux-users mailing list