GPL and storage requirements

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sun Mar 25 14:03:15 UTC 2007


On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 08:41:27AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
> >On 3/25/07, Matt Domsch <matt at domsch.com> wrote:
> >>> No, that is what 3(c) is for. Only Fedora carries the long-term
> >>> storage requirements in that case. (And as far as I can see, if you're
> >>> still distributing FC1, Fedora has no problem with nearly indefinite
> >>> storage.)
> >>
> >>That's the problem.  We don't have infinite and indefinite storage,
> >
> >Which 'we'? Fedora? or Fedora's mirrors? I guess I assumed the primary
> >goal here was to reduce demands on mirrors, not on Fedora.

> Fedora, right now we've got 43G free on the primary mirror.  I want to 
> know what our options are.

I guess for the primary mirror we could stock up its capacities or
split into download and archives, or not?

It would be sad to lose the binaries of FC1 and friends, even for
historical and statistical purposes. There was just a thread on
another list seeking old RH releases of the 90s.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070325/b9aad840/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list