User Feedback :: JohnMurga



Quote
It is like if you didn't follow any of the conversations that have been taking place...

It is like I *have* and I don't need you to explain what's happened or to lecture me about simple solutions.
What about extensions? Does this mean that source code has to be included along with compiled binaries?
Quote (jpeters @ June 20 2008,06:13)
What about extensions? Does this mean that source code has to be included along with compiled binaries?

They don't have to accompany the downloaded binaries, but should be available. Since DSL has taken responsibility for distributing the extensions via the MYDSL Repository, DSL (And any mirror) would be responsible for providing the sources, upon request. So anyone submitting an extension, should (Imho) send John or Robert a copy of the sources, and in the info file, indicate that the person requiring the source can "A: Take the faster road of downloading it from the package's original website, or B: If no longer available at A, email: soandso@damnsmalllinux.org"
Quote
What about extensions? Does this mean that source code has to be included along with compiled binaries?

Yes, the sources should be available for anything with a license (GPL) requiring it. I'd asked Robert about this behind the scenes (Murga might try that kind of thing sometime) before all this came up with ananda's remasters and this mess Murga stirred up. The problems with merely linking to sites are:
- the GPL doesn't allow that -- which is why John himself had to make the sources available instead of directing people to the upstream repositories for the distros upon which DSL is based,
- the sites typically won't include any files generated by or changed during configuration (which is required by GPL as andrewb reminded us),
- many of the extensions are from Debian Woody with no reference to patch levels or changes (and as the recent Debian SSL problem proves, that can be a very important thing to know), and
- Debian no longer has Woody repos linked so those things can even be checked.

There are also other problems I pointed out with respect to accuracy of license information. Some MyDSL extensions are shown with the wrong license. I gave Robert a few examples where things are listed as GPL when they aren't (perhaps vice versa, too, but I'm not auditing the entire repository) or one license is shown when there are more in effect because different projects are combined into one extension.

I also asked about how to - ahem - handle the issue with respect to lengthier copyright attributions required by some projects and libraries.

These are things that should be cleared up ASAP and while this Murga BS is still fresh in our minds.

edit...
Again, I have the sources for everything -- GPL or otherwise -- that I've submitted. I also explicitly noted in one (GPL'ed) extension which I later asked to be removed what my configuration options were to comply as much as I could since DSL wasn't keeping any sources.
Quote (lucky13 @ June 20 2008,11:36)
(Murga might try that kind of thing sometime)

Quote (lucky13 @ June 20 2008,11:36)
this mess Murga stirred up.

Quote (lucky13 @ June 20 2008,11:36)
These are things that should be cleared up ASAP and while this Murga BS is still fresh in our minds.

And all that in just one post, do you think the constant mud-slinging reflects badly on me our you ?

At a time when people are trying to focus on the positive aspects of this incident and move on it may be helpful if you do the same ...
Specially considering that your post appears to contain valuable information.

Cheers
JohnM
Next Page...
original here.