El dom, 30-03-2008 a las 10:19 -0700, Matthieu Riou escribió: > > > So what makes you pretty sure public access to a SCM amounts to > distribution > in the definition of publication? AFAICT, there's still no purpose of > distribution. We don't offer the download of a tarball from our > repositories. That others offer doesn't change what our source > repository > is.
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repository , while there are a number of things that a repository is, I stress this one: "a place where multiple databases or files are located for distribution over a network" (multiple -> several different tags, releases, modules, etc.) In fact a source repository is for archival, auditing, development *and* distribution. The fact that reading from it is 100% free (except certain anti-DoS provisions) doesn't help claims about it not being a distribution mechanism. > > Re: the purpose of further distribution, gentoo, just to give an > > example, offers sometimes -svn/-git/-cvs versioned packages, and > those > > are built by accessing the SCM repository, checking out a HEAD copy, > > building the binaries and installing. I've seen this kind of > packages > > (repackaged) in debian and rpm distributions too. and I've seen > plenty > > of XXX-patched-cvs-200XXXXX.tgz/jar files in our own distributions. > > > Which means that these pakages, if they're produced and published with > an > intent to be distributed could very well be a publication. Still > doesn't > mean that offering a repository is by itself a publication. > The moment something is publicly out on a web site (and subversion implements a superset of HTTP), it can be safely assumed that there was an intent of publication of it. I think you'd had a difficult time trying to convince a judge that it is *not* a distribution mechanism. Regards -- Santiago Gala http://memojo.com/~sgala/blog/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
