FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-21-2007, 09:50 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:56:08 -0800
Karsten Wade <kwade@redhat.com> wrote:

> Note that EPEL, a Fedora project, has a much longer window of usage of
> packages based on older Fedora source. Currently eight years.
>
> How does EPEL fit in here? Is it a downstream?

As I see it, EPEL is it's own project, because it publishes the srpms
along side the binaries.

>
> EPEL explicitly only supports what people are interested in
> maintaining. I.e., a package for EPEL 5 may be orphaned after a few
> years.
>
> Does EPEL's obligation to make sources available stop at that time?
> Or N periods of time after that?

EPELs obligation with regard to the sources lasts as long as the binary
is made available. If you retire the binary, you can retire the source.

>
> What if a package is un-orphaned after that? E.g., during year four,
> someone picks up an orphaned foo.rpm. Does that restart the clock on
> making sources available? What does EPEL do if Fedora no longer has
> that source available?

Again, unorphaning the package would mean making a build for it, which
would produce a binary, and a source. The source would be made
available along with the binary, and then there is no clock. Just keep
the source up as long as the binary.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-21-2007, 09:53 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:48:55 -0900
"Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you saying that as a project we can make a commitment to producing
> the corresponding source media image for every binary media image we
> produce at the time of binary media image production?

We can get away with making a limited number of source isos that works
for either the specific binary images we hand out, or maybe one larger
one that works for all the binary ones. I just propose that we use
this method instead of an offer to download the sources, which would
pin us to at least 3 years, potentially a /lot/ more depending on the
interpretation of the license.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-21-2007, 09:57 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:43:54 +0100
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@kanarip.com> wrote:

> GPLv2 doesn't say though that once the binary is released originally,
> the clock starts ticking all over again each time it is redistributed
> by a third party that uses 3c. A written offer can easily contain a
> time frame consistent with the three years described in the license,
> possibly extended to 3 years + a release's lifecycle.

That's your interpretation. Are you a lawyer?

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-21-2007, 10:16 PM
Matt Domsch
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 05:57:10PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:43:54 +0100
> Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@kanarip.com> wrote:
>
> > GPLv2 doesn't say though that once the binary is released originally,
> > the clock starts ticking all over again each time it is redistributed
> > by a third party that uses 3c. A written offer can easily contain a
> > time frame consistent with the three years described in the license,
> > possibly extended to 3 years + a release's lifecycle.
>
> That's your interpretation. Are you a lawyer?

Without putting words in people's mouths, including a time frame is
consistent with my conversation with Brett Smith of the FSF.

-Matt

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-21-2007, 10:19 PM
Jeroen van Meeuwen
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

Jesse Keating wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:43:54 +0100
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@kanarip.com> wrote:

GPLv2 doesn't say though that once the binary is released originally,
the clock starts ticking all over again each time it is redistributed

by a third party that uses 3c. A written offer can easily contain a
time frame consistent with the three years described in the license,
possibly extended to 3 years + a release's lifecycle.


That's your interpretation. Are you a lawyer?



You on the other hand are fearing the exact opposite so much you
wouldn't let anyone dig into it -"Please avoid at all costs". Now, tell
me, are you a lawyer, Mr. Keating? Don't try and make this about me,
attack my opinion with arguments, please. Last time I checked we share a
common goal here -a greater good if you will.


Haven't I requested -since you think it is so dangerous- to determine
what it is it says we can or cannot do?


-Jeroen

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-21-2007, 10:21 PM
Jeroen van Meeuwen
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

Matt Domsch wrote:

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 05:57:10PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:43:54 +0100
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@kanarip.com> wrote:

GPLv2 doesn't say though that once the binary is released originally,
the clock starts ticking all over again each time it is redistributed

by a third party that uses 3c. A written offer can easily contain a
time frame consistent with the three years described in the license,
possibly extended to 3 years + a release's lifecycle.

That's your interpretation. Are you a lawyer?


Without putting words in people's mouths, including a time frame is
consistent with my conversation with Brett Smith of the FSF.



So has it been with some people I've talked to -can't think of their
names right now. The overall impression was though, that the counter
does not reset itself because of some third party taking you up on the
original offer. Hence the thought it might be worthwhile to investigate.


-Jeroen

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-21-2007, 10:22 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:19:35 +0100
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@kanarip.com> wrote:

> You on the other hand are fearing the exact opposite so much you
> wouldn't let anyone dig into it -"Please avoid at all costs". Now,
> tell me, are you a lawyer, Mr. Keating? Don't try and make this about
> me, attack my opinion with arguments, please. Last time I checked we
> share a common goal here -a greater good if you will.
>
> Haven't I requested -since you think it is so dangerous- to determine
> what it is it says we can or cannot do?

It's already on my to-do list to have a nice long sitdown with our
legal team regarding this issue. However it's not something I can do
today.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-21-2007, 10:44 PM
Jeroen van Meeuwen
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

Jesse Keating wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:19:35 +0100
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@kanarip.com> wrote:

You on the other hand are fearing the exact opposite so much you
wouldn't let anyone dig into it -"Please avoid at all costs". Now,

tell me, are you a lawyer, Mr. Keating? Don't try and make this about
me, attack my opinion with arguments, please. Last time I checked we
share a common goal here -a greater good if you will.

Haven't I requested -since you think it is so dangerous- to determine
what it is it says we can or cannot do?


It's already on my to-do list to have a nice long sitdown with our
legal team regarding this issue. However it's not something I can do
today.



Sure I understand, thanks for following up on this. Really, thanks.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-21-2007, 11:40 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

On Nov 21, 2007 2:16 PM, Matt Domsch <matt@domsch.com> wrote:
> Without putting words in people's mouths, including a time frame is
> consistent with my conversation with Brett Smith of the FSF.

We've pretty much come to the point where we have to have a legal
ruling as to which if any GPLv2 or v3 "offer" clauses are consistent
with the idea of a pre-defined time frame. The discussion of whether
or not we want to make use or encourage the use of any such clause
can't move forward until we know if setting an explicit time frame as
part of an offer does really set a limit of the project's burden to
provide source. I've long ago given up the notion that common-sense
makes any sense when applied to legalese.

In the mean time we have to do something with regard to source
availability for at least the media images that we host. And I still
would like to see us implement srpm re-generation on demand to help
aid consumers get source for a reasonable period of time (that is
above and beyond the strict legal requirements) for
releases,updates,updates-testing and even rawhide.

-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-22-2007, 08:40 PM
"Robert 'Bob' Jensen"
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

Jeff Spaleta wrote:

On Nov 21, 2007 10:00 AM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:

The concern is that depending on the legal interpretation of 3b and 3c
of the GPL, the clock may restart on every redistribution. So, we host a
release of Fedora for 3 years, then take it down, but on the day before
we do, someone else redistributes it and then asks us to honor our "3
years worth of source" promise, since for them, it hasn't been three
years since their initial date of redistribution.


I have a pile of F7 live cds. If I'm still a board member 3 years from
now (god forbid) and I had that F7 livecd out. Is Fedora as a project
responsible for making the source available still? Again how we are
dealing with livecds right now makes this issue unavoidable. If the
clock starts over everytime i hand one of these officially pressed
disks out.. you're screwed. I have enough f7 livecd disks left to hand
out once a year for the next decade or more. Feel free to fly up here
and forcible take them from me.... muhahahahahahaha.

-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board


I can go one better, I have Fedora Core 6 PPC DVDs....


Robert 'Bob' Jensen
Fedora Unity Project
Fedora Ambassador
Fedora Contributor
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BobJensen

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:43 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org