Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 03:51:18AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Unfortunately no such file exists --- I guess it disappeared during
>> some upgrade. The jars in the source package only contain class
>> files, no .java source files.
>>
>> Assuming that what debian/copyright says is correct, this would make
>> the ensembl package non-distributable:
>
> In how far would this make the package non-distributable? Just
> providing the binary without source is OK as long as you can provide
> the source at request.
We're veering off-topic, but the section 6 of GPL-3 you are referring
to says:
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) a
[...]
c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
with subsection 6b.
I don't believe you received such a three-year offer accompanying a
diskette with the .jar files and are passing it on.
[...]
>> notify the admins of snapshot.debian.org so the nondistributable
>> versions can be removed.
>
> This would be pure overreaction.
What's the harm in it? I don't mean that the admins should treat this
as a high priority, just that that's the normal thing to do when code
is discovered to be nondistributable.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
