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

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer perezmeyer at gmail.com
Mon Sep 30 14:41:17 CEST 2013


On Monday 30 September 2013 08:36:50 Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> 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.

Plus the benefit that if the source is needed more than once, we can point to 
a "canonical" version for developers to check. This is of course convenience, 
not a requirement.

-- 
Yo quiero conocer el pensamiento de Dios, el resto son detalles.
 Albert Einstein

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20130930/9f815607/attachment.sig>


More information about the Development mailing list