Opened 16 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
#3818 closed bug (fixed)
GPL binaries without source code
| Reported by: | luroh | Owned by: | axeld |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | R1 |
| Component: | - General | Version: | R1/pre-alpha1 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| Blocked By: | Blocking: | ||
| Platform: | All |
Description
There are a number of GPL-licensed binaries at haiku-files.org that currently come without source code or offer of source code, we need to rectify that.
Just putting the source code up for download is probably the path of least resistance, IMO. Note that merely linking to upstream sources, even for unmodified code, is probably not advisable (see FSF/Mepis spat http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9113053102.html).
Change History (5)
comment:1 by , 16 years ago
follow-up: 4 comment:2 by , 16 years ago
Would it be possible to support a new directory for OptionalPackages?
possibly something like "/path/etc/gpl-source-code"
This file, would be a plain text file that provides a direct download link to the GPL source code and patches.
file: "OpenSSL" :
http://www.haiku-files.org/files/gpl-source-code/openssl.0.9.8k.zip http://www.haiku-files.org/files/gpl-source-code/openssl.0.9.8.patch
comment:3 by , 15 years ago
comment:4 by , 14 years ago
This file, would be a plain text file that provides a direct download link to the GPL source code and patches.
file: "OpenSSL" :http://www.haiku-files.org/files/gpl-source-code/openssl.0.9.8k.zip http://www.haiku-files.org/files/gpl-source-code/openssl.0.9.8.patch
Bad example, since OpenSSL is of course NOT GPL'd, it's under the Apache License which basically lets you not have to save it's source code for three years. Of course they do provide links to their old source code though going back to 1998, so I see no real reason to need to save a copy of the unmodified source in that case. But yes for GPL code... haven't we already come up with a solution that is followed with every milestone release? Can this ticket be closed now?
comment:5 by , 12 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
At least according to GPLv2.0-3b, the offer for source code must be valid for at least 3 years. Though I'm not sure if that's from when the distributed package is first created or when it was most recently distributed. So, if we do go this route, we should be certain that it is the only place used for hosting gpl source tarballs.
Any thoughts on implementing a mechanism to provide the sources inside the image file? It would be the most complete (as in cover-our-backside) method.