From dewar@adacore.com Sat Jan 14 18:37:19 2006 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0-gr0 (2005-09-13) on aldar.unige.ch X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0-gr0 X-Gmail-Received: 36caaa23357faf796359847034db50f4002b1278 Delivered-To: gshapovalov@gmail.com Received: by 10.36.140.15 with SMTP id n15cs401nzd; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:37:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.9.16 with SMTP id 16mr3575201nzi; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:37:21 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 14si3758674nzp.2006.01.14.09.37.20; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:37:21 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 134.68.220.30 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of dewar@adacore.com) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([205.232.38.5]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1ExpL6-0004Cx-96; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:37:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B413348CBE8; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:37:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 01439-01; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:37:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp10.gnat.com [205.232.38.232]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C85648CBE9; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:37:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43C936CF.2070700@adacore.com> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:37:19 -0500 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: George Shapovalov CC: ada@gentoo.org Subject: Re: inclusion og gnat-gpl-2005 in Gentoo Linux References: <200601141738.25754.george@gentoo.org> <43C92C37.7060500@adacore.com> <200601141825.57882.george@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200601141825.57882.george@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-Bogosity: Unsure, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500000, version=1.0.1 X-UID: Status: R X-Status: NC X-KMail-EncryptionState: X-KMail-SignatureState: X-KMail-MDN-Sent: George Shapovalov wrote: >Thanks for quick reply Robert! > >So, it seems that the easiest and safest way for us is to prepare a "snapshot" >of the source based on the version I recently downloaded, adding the two >missing files, and put it up at our location, allowing mirrors to pick it up >in the usual way. > > Yes, that would certainly be fine, though see below >For the legal stuff: >We do *not* distribute binaries where we can avoid that (I suppose this is >what you are refering to when saying "distribute the program" as opposed to >"distribute the sources"), and this is the case here. We allways distributre >software in source form if we can. In fact, technically, it may be argued >that in the majority of cases (where the source is under "free" license and >SRC_URI has proper upstream location, so this probably does not apply if we >mirror the source ourselves) we do not perform a distribution in the usual >sense at all - we only distribute the installation instructions and users >carry them out locally, in automated way, using the software we produce. > > OK, if you are not distributing the binaries, then it is fine to refer to the sources at the libre site in any way. >Also, we allways provide a copy of the license for any package that is in our >repository (of course only one version of each for the common ones, such as >GPL-2 or BSD) (this is even used by portage to place additional restrictions >on availability of packages, should user want to choose not to install >packages covered by a certain license), plus install the licenses along with >the docs for individual packages, where appropriate. > > As long as you are not distributing biaries, then everything is just fine, as you say above, you are not distributing binaries in the GPL sense at all. >AFAIK this procedure has been cleared with our lawer(s) a few years ago, >however if you want to look into this closer, please send me your questions >about any specifics and I will raise them with our team. > > Sounds OK to me.