Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:37:57 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Yes, where MEPIS != Debian, but in this case the ia64 compose of
> Fedora = Fedora. There are no changes (afaik) the ia64 binary
> packages were built from the same srpms at the same time that the
> i386, x86_64, and ppc(64) binary rpms were built.
The point is that ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/fedora/
has to carry the
SRPMS as well, I think.
Personally I think it's fine to point back to RHAT for the sources,
after all you click on a link and get taken to a server with the correct
sources, it is very difficult to find something to complain about that
it happens to be hosted by RHAT and not the same files elsewhere. If
the files disappeared from RHAT or for some other reason users could not
get at them, well then it can be time to worry about hosting sources
yourself. But that does not seem to be the opinion of the FSF:
Talking on behalf of CentOS, Johnny Hughes says, "CentOS has been
providing source for all packages, changed and unchanged, in their
distribution. CentOS has the same understanding of the GPL as expressed
by the FSF on this issue."
"Before I was contacted by the FSF, I didn't know that we needed to
actually offer the source code of binaries we didn't modify," says John
Andrews, the source code maintainer of Damn Small Linux. "Yet we do
comply now, and the FSF occasionally pops in with an email to make sure
we do." Similarly, LinuxCD.org
, a distributor, makes only Fedora source
code available -- and only provides that because it was specifically
requested to do so.