Re: Emacs 23.4 Updated Windows Binaries published

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Lennart Borgman writes:

 > It says "through the same place", not "at the same place". And it also
 > tells what to do if the source is not on the same server as the object
 > code.
 > 
 > I really do not understand. I would be glad if you explained
 > further.

You may be right.  At least, by "same place" I mean "via relative
URI", and I've always read 6(d) that way, but that's clearly my
mistake since it does refer to textual instructions.

The question about a third party's sources, though, I think there's
some ambiguity there.  "You" are required to provide and ensure
availability of the sources; I've always interpreted that as meaning
you need to have access to the server where the archive is hosted, and
the phrase about "operated by a third party" is intended to avoid the
excessive burden (for most folks) of maintaining a host.  Rather, you
can use Savannah or SourceForge, as long as you do the work of
maintaining the copy.

If the intent is in fact to allow a third party's copy to be used, ok,
you're technically right.  But I would consider the necessary legal
arrangements to be prohibitively expensive, compared to a rental
server or a project on Savannah or SourceForge.

 > Updating the DOI-like URI would indeed be problematic since it could
 > still be used for old distributed object. I guess you have to create
 > new numbers for every ojbect distribution.

Yes.  But this isn't that hard; you would use some kind of universal
ID, like the bzr revid (not revno).

 > Ok, I never understood it that way, but you may be right. However even
 > Launchpad seems to get an easy way to download a zip file instead of
 > using Bazaar soon.

Sure, that would certainly satisfy the "equivalent copying" requirement.