Non-free tarball checked in

drago01 drago01 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 12 17:53:16 UTC 2012


On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:21:52 -0500,
>  Jon Ciesla <limburgher at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga <mattia.verga at tiscali.it> wrote:
>> >
>> > And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not
>> > installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the
>> > source be purged from those?
>>
>> If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.
>
> Does that cover GPL binaries where we are sure we have the specific source
> versions that correspond to the binaries?
>
> For example pdf files, which I suspect might have been created from odt
> files, but I am not sure I can get the versions of the odt files that
> match the included pdf files?

IANAL but I would call the odt "source code" and the pdf "binary" but
just use the term "documentation" for either.
It is not a binary in the sense of "compiled code".


More information about the devel mailing list