GPL and storage requirements

[Mike McGrath]

Luis Villa wrote:
> On 3/25/07, Matt Domsch <matt at domsch.com> wrote:
>> > My reading of Sec. 3 (IANAL, this is not a legal opinion, etc.) is
>> > that Fedora's liability ends three years after Fedora stops
>> > distributing, and that mirrors are not violating the terms if they
>> > continue to distribute binaries once you've stopped distributing
>> > source. They merely have to distribute your offer, even though it may
>> > no longer be valid.
>>
>> If we (Fedora and all its public mirrors) aren't under 3(a), then we
>> probably need to keep all SRPMS for all updates ever published too,
>> which I'm not sure we do presently (we might, I just don't know - that
>> may be a feature of the build system).  We wouldn't have to keep them
>> online live for the mirrors necessarily, but would have to make them
>> available "on demand" via the written offer, which is in the docs
>> files at the top of every CD/DVD produced for a while.
>>
>> I've thought, and again, IANAL, that Fedora is covered by 3(a) because
>> we distribute source and binaries concurrently.  If that isn't
>> sufficient because mirrors exist, wow...
>
> Don't panic! I was unclear. You and your mirrors are clearly[1] 3(a)
> right now. So you can stop distributing whenever you want (as long as
> you stop distributing both binary and source at the same time.)
>
> I was under the impression that the focus of the request was 'how do
> we reduce space usage on the mirrors', rather than 'how do we reduce
> space usage on the master'. That is why I suggested that you move to
> 3(a) + a 3(b) notice that source would always be available from the
> master server. That would reduce mirror load, but clearly not help the
> master at all.
>
> If the goal is to reduce load on the master server, then yeah... if
> you just stop distributing binaries whenever you choose to stop
> distributing source, you should be in the clear.[2]
>
> As far as source rpms for updates... I think you're right that
> switching to a reliance on 3(b) would require keeping those around.
> Good catch.
>
> Luis
>
> [1] subject to all the disclaimers I keep spewing!
> [2] The historian in me says that would be a shame, though.
I think we'll be fine soon, the hardware just isn't there right now.

    -Mike