[haiku-development] Re: Write access to haiku-files.org?

  • From: "Ingo Weinhold" <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:32:05 +0200

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:35:33 +0000
> Von: Matt Madia <mattmadia@xxxxxxxxx>

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 13:49, Ingo Weinhold<ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > How about a "Sources:" field to the .OptionalPackageDescription, a URL
> that
> > AboutSystem would link to? I suppose linking to the original source plus
> > (if applicable) the Haiku specific patch would work, too. Or even just
> to
> > the HaikuPorts portlog page.
> A much more elegant solution indeed :)
> Basically, we need to link to the source, any patches, and possibly
> instructions (as is the case for GPLv3). This even applies for
> binaries that do not require patching.

OK, so linking to the port log is probably the way to go.

> Externally linking to a server outside of our control is discouraged,
> as the owner of the site may shutdown the site or (re)move the source
> archive.

Good point.

> For physically distributed mediums -- CD, USB, pre-installed on
> computers: a written offer is required. Optionally, we could include
> the sources/patches/instructions alongside the physical medium and
> then not need to concern ourselves with needing to reply to written
> requests for source code.

The GPL 3 is harmless in this respect:

"6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
    (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
    written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
    long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
    model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) [...] or (2) 
access to copy the
    Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."

The GPL 2 doesn't explicitly allow the network server option, but I guess 
providing the source this way and saying in the "offer" that this is the 
preferred way, but, if requested, physical source distribution would be 
available (at a cost) would hopefully prevent actual requests.

I agree that including the sources would be the carefree option. So, adding a 
build system rule to associate an optional package with a source archive URL 
(or more than one) isn't a bad idea. We also need to think about the [L]GPLed 
code in our repository.

Regarding the new .OPD field, I don't mind whether it's called "Sources" or 
"SourceURL". I propose to use an email address field like syntax, e.g. for 

  SourceURL: HaikuPorts Log 

(single line)

Multiple "SourceURL" fields are allowed. They would appear in AboutSystem as 
comma-separated list, like:

  Source Code: HaikuPorts Log, BitTorrent, ...

CU, Ingo

Other related posts: