[sylpheed:34098] Re: Sylpheed FAQ revision 2.1 released

[Petr Kovar]

Hi!

Ricardo Mones <mones at debian.org>, Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:51:49 +0200:

> 
>   Hi Petr,
> 
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:00:44 +0200
> Petr Kovar <pknbe at volny.cz> wrote:
> 
> > Sylpheed FAQ revision 2.1 released on 2010-04-14
> [...]
> > Or download it in a .tar.gz or .zip archive from:
> > 
> > https://sourceforge.net/projects/sylpheeddoc/files/
> > 
> > DocBook XML source files are available in the Project CVS repository,
> > see:
> > 
> > https://sourceforge.net/scm/?type=cvs&group_id=20952
> 
>   Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but hadn't noticed until today when
>   trying to update the sylpheed-doc Debian package: why the XML sources
> have been not included in the release tarball?
> 
>   Removing them makes the tarball not to comply with its FDL license.

Thanks for bringing this issue up. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and
basically, I intended to decrease the tarball in size and also not to
distribute files which are likely to be not of interest to the general
public, that is as I was under impression it's OK and compatible with the
FDL license to link to the source files (available in public CVS
repository) from the generated files (i.e. HTML files, which in fact may be
viewed per se as source files too, for what it's worth).

Thinking about this, look at e.g. binary Linux distributions, generally it's
also enough for them to just link to the publicly available sources and they
don't need to distribute the sources along with the binary data (and I
believe it's also the case for documentation HTML/PDF/etc. files that have
been generated from the XML sources).

Do you have any reliable source that suggest to always distribute sources
along with the generated files? Not to belittle your advice or anything, but
I'm seriously wondering...

Thank you,
Petr Kovar