[Development] Policy: supplying the preferred format for modifications for everything we ship

[Konrad Rosenbaum]

On Sunday 29 September 2013 22:26:41 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> As we do not modify those files, but take them from upstream, having a
> README that say where the file are from is enough.
> I don't see why it should be part of the tarball. (and especially they
> should not be in the git repositories)

The "problem" is that (L)GPL requires to offer the _exact_ _same_ sources that 
were used to build the binary (or intermediate source). Just pointing to a URL 
usually gives the user access to the _current_ upstream sources - speaking as 
a user: it is no fun trying to compile (legacy) stuff for hours only to find 
out that one of the first support libraries was an incompatible version and 
not the one I needed.

In short: providing the tarballs of the _exact_ upstream sources that were 
used along the Qt tarballs is the easiest way of ensuring we fulfill our 
obligations under (L)GPL and making sure users have what they need.


	Konrad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20130930/b1029407/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20130930/b1029407/attachment.sig>