Providing source code along with binaries - was Re: [GRASS-dev] WinGRASS-6.3.0RC5 Self Installer

[Markus Neteler]

(cc PSC,
 thread: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2008-March/036460.html
)

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert at club.worldonline.be> wrote:
> On 25/03/08 10:13, Markus Neteler wrote:
>  > Moritz Lennert wrote: ...
...
>  >> Everything is available at
>  >> http://geog-pc40.ulb.ac.be/grass/wingrass/wingrass_sources/
>  >> including the version of the GRASS sources you used (don't think
>  >> this is necessary, but just to be complete). All packages are
>  >> available individually, and there also is a wingrass_sources.tar
>  >> which contains them all.
>  >>
>  >> Maybe Markus can just get the tar and put it on the download site
>  >> next to the installer ?
>  >
>  > you mean: wingrass_sources.tar        13-Mar-2008 11:48        45M ?
>  >
>  > I am not sure if we should really store that on the OSGeo server.
>  > Then we have to do the same also for all the other binaries and fill
>  >  up the server space with overhead. If you insist, I suggest to
>  > discuss this on the GRASS-PSC list.
>
>  What do you mean by "all the other binaries" ?

Perhaps Linux, Mac, Ultrix, DEC, ...? binaries require different
source packages. So we would accumulate a lot once we start to
provide more binaries (as soon as the OSGeo buildbot is open for
us).

>  > We could store the hard-to-get sources, but why host PROJ4, GDAL and
>  >  such?
>
>  Here is what Glynn wrote a bit earlier in this thread:
>
> > Please note that, if you provide binaries which are covered by the
>  > GPL, you must provide the corresponding source code for download
>  > *from the same place*. It isn't sufficient to point to the source on
>  > a different site.

Just curious why this didn't came up earlier (GPL change in 1999).
?

>From the same place would cover
gdal.osgeo.org
?

>  > Alternatively, you can provide a written offer to supply the source
>  > code upon request, but that means that you have to keep those exact
>  > versions of the source code handy for the next 3 years (the website
>  > where you obtained it may cease to provide it when a new version is
>  > released).

If we/us/PSC decides that we want to provide all (!) the needed source
code packages, we need a systematic approach. I still don't think that
we should just throw stuff into the mswindows/ directory.

Markus