GPL Causing Problems for Derivative Linux Distros

NewsForge (Also owned by VA) is reporting on a recent discovery by Warren Woodford about how the GPL could affect derivative Linux distributions. This could make life difficult for those small distros that are being maintained by one or two people in their spare time due to the high amount of work it creates. From the article: "Woodford does supply the source code for MEPIS' reconfigured kernel in a Debian source-package. His mistake seems to have been the assumption that, so long as the source code was available somewhere, he did not have to provide it himself if he hadn't modified it. While he has not contacted any other distributions, he suspects that he is far from the only one to make this assumption. 'We, like 10,000 other people, probably, believed we were covered by the safe harbor of having an upstream distribution available online,' Woodford says. 'I think, of the 500 distributions tracked by DistroWatch, probably 450 of them are in trouble right now per this position.'"

Comments

Applies to other GPL software as well

[LiquidCoooled]

Remember, this applies equally to kernel hackers as well as people creating derivatives from other GPL software.

From: mrAngry@snootygits.com
Subject: I want the source code to your system!

Polite Reply:
If you would like the source code you are welcome to have it.
Please note however that I have only made changes to a few of the thousands of x system source files.

There are 2 ways that you can have it, the simplest being go to my upstream system writer and download the base code which I used and see the src folder on my FTP/CVS/web server for my own modifications.

Otherwise I am willing to post you a CD/DVD containing the entire source code (original and my modifications). I cannot unfortunately upload the entire x GB folder since I do not have the bandwidth to spare.
Please note however, there will be an administration and postage charge of £10 if you require a DVD image.

have a nice day.

Anyone making source modifications to a system must have at least one source copy of the original so be respectful but don't waste your time worrying about it.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[wpanderson]

I think the primary concern is, what happens to a distro like MEPIS? Do they need to retain a full and publically available source repository for every package in Ubuntu? That could be an administrative and financial drain.

If an upstream distro has to keep their sources available for all revisions of all packages for three years, surely all a downstream distro has to do is refer to those sources for untainted packages? Is this good enough for the FSF, or are they just going to turn into the bully of the FOSS community?

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[nocomment]

Is this good enough for the FSF, or are they just going to turn into the bully of the FOSS community?

It appears to be the latter.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Doctor Memory]

Do they need to retain a full and publically available source repository for every package in Ubuntu?

No, just the ones they distribute. Honestly, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. I mean, you had the source when you compiled the system, right? Once you get your release squared away, you do the release build, then zip up a copy of the sources and tuck it away somewhere. If someone wants the source, then you drag it out and make it available. Note that the GPL permits you to charge reasonable fees for making the source available, so go ahead and copy the source CD and ship it off. As long as it's not in some odd-wad format, you should be fine (legally speaking).

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[throx]

I think the primary concern is, what happens to a distro like MEPIS? Do they need to retain a full and publically available source repository for every package in Ubuntu? That could be an administrative and financial drain.

There is no requirement to have the source instantly available online. It is perfectly acceptable to simply present a written offer of the source code for a nominal handling fee on physical media such as DVD-R. This will eliminate most of the people who just want the code to annoy you rather than do something serious with it.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[LiquidCoooled]

Exactly my thinking.

There is no requirement to keep the source code available online to every single release you have ever done, but it makes SENSE to keep it stored away on CD inside a filing cabinet.
If somebody comes to you in 3 years with a request to the source code, you can return the EXACT code he had from the release he is requesting.

It is not breaking any clause of the GPL and would infact be a worthy test of a company to produce such data.

The daytime software I work on is closed source, however we use the same thinking there.
I can go into our files and produce a CD containing the entire code and packages for every single release of the software we have made since the DOS days.

To my knowledge however we have only ever required it ONCE. If it were open source, why would I waste the space to keep that online? (there are around 90 release CDs available, each around 400mb)

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

These issues with the GPL are exactly why I stopped supplying my ChimeraLinux distro. Now I just help people pirate Windows warez.

Urgent Note to the BSA: I'm just kidding. You know, a joke. Really just a joke. Please don't send the black helicopters.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[LiquidCoooled]

Please don't send the black helicopters.

Here in England, the helicopters are navy blue with pinstripes ;)

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[IANAAC]

I would agree. About three years ago, I published a couple of glossaries and put them up on the web in Pilot-DB format (an opensource database for the Palm). I fretted so much about makeing sure that the source of the underlying database was available, and have always had a link on the download page to get the source if needed or wanted by anyone.

In the three years I've made these glossaries available, not once has anyone requested the source. Not once.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[cyclop]

Well, I don't think the issue is how many times the code will be requested, but it is important the very fact that is is *possible* to retrieve it.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Fourier]

You clearly asked the wrong people. Much like Debian, Ubuntu's packages can be found quite easily on its website. A quick search here leads to the kernel image package; there you can find a link leading you to the kernel source package used to generate the image.

The APT package management system also provides commands that make it quite easy to download source automatically.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[mindstrm]

They don't have to keep their source for 3 years, unless they used the Section 3b "written offer" clause of the GPL to redistribute.

Every distro I know of uses 3a and the "equivalent access" principle to provide source (the source is available from the same place you get the binaries.. either on CD or donwload. IF you use this method, you dno' thave to maintain anything for 3 years.. you can stop distributing the source as soon as you stop distributing the binary.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[rbanffy]

Is there a problem with "apt-get source linux-image-2.6.15-25-686"?

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it. Provide a link to the Ubuntu forums where the admin/mod told you to "fuck off".

As far as I'm aware, the kernel source to Ubuntu is also easily available through apt. I'm using Ubuntu 6.06 right now and I see several source packages for the various kernel releases. I'm busy and to lazy to confirm it, but is this not the complete kernel source?

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[drinkypoo]

IF you use this method, you dno' thave to maintain anything for 3 years.. you can stop distributing the source as soon as you stop distributing the binary.

I don't think it matters. The GPL says that if you cannot distribute your program under the terms of the GPL then your sole remedy is to stop distribution... that sort of implies that stopping distribution is sufficient response if you are violating the GPL. Thus you shouldn't need to keep anything around if you stop distributing permanently. Of course, IANAL, so bend over.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[DeafByBeheading]

I don't think he can. Grandparent will probably claim that the post was censored or the thread removed.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[NemosomeN]

Thank you, but it doesn't matter much, I've moved on. As the problem involved a network issue, apt-get was not an option. I tried to search the page but with little to no luck. This was some time ago, by the way.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[NemosomeN]

Or that it didn't occur on the forum. Why should I prove it? This argument isn't important anyway. Assume I'm lying, that's what you want to do anyway. Wasn't trying to light a wild-fire here.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[munpfazy]

No, just the ones they distribute. Honestly, I don't
  understand why this is such a big deal.

Yup. Seems like total nonsense to me.

Even if he chose to distribute the sources online, the resources required are trivial. A bzip'd source file is rarely much larger than binaries produced from it. We're talking about at most a factor of 2 difference in storage on the server even if he decided to independently place the source to every version of every binary online. And, there are many ways to cut that number down until it's a marginal increase in storage requirements.

There's no requirement that he distribute the source in an elaborate or easy to use way. Just write something that fetches the source to every used package and tosses them on the server somewhere every time a version is released. Remove the old ones from the server and offer to ship a dvd in exchange for handling costs.

Better yet, keep an up-to-date local copy and just check it into a cvs server with every release. (That way you only pay to store the diffs and have the source for every release available should anyone want it.)

If he's right and nobody actually wants or needs to get the source from him, then the additional bandwidth requirements will be tiny. On the other hand, if the added bandwidth *is* important, then it demonstrates that there's a very good reason to require source distribution.

Personally, I've never used a distro for which source packages aren't available. It seems like such an obvious step that I'd think twice before trusting someone who didn't do so automatically *before* getting a letter from the fsf.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[dubonbacon]

I said Ubuntu wasn't being compliant
This is probably why you were answered so rudely. Your demand wasn't exactly polite either.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Saint Stephen]

Exactly. As I understand it, there is nothing in the GPL which prohibits you from requiring $X million dollars for a copy of your modifications. The only restriction is the person is the first person who gives you the $X million can give it away for free.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

And why do you think it's on the www server as opposed to somewhere else on the domain? Oh, that's right, you don't care about the point that Ubuntu themselves don't provide kernel sources in an obvious location, or won't even think that perhaps he paraphrased, because you're too busy attacking him.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Fallingcow]

Adding the words "kernel" and "source" to that search causes google to return only one page of results, none of which are from the Ubuntu forum, and none of which come close to what this guy described.

Besides, as noted by someone else on here, using "source" instead of "install" with apt-get (the standard command-line package management command in Ubuntu) will get you the source for a given package, if it's available. And, for the kernel, it IS available. I'm almost certain that Synaptic (the graphical package manager available via the "advanced" option on the simpler, primary package manager) has an option for grabbing source packages, as well, so it's not like one must drop to the command line to do this.

That is probably the most obvious locatation they could put it in. The same place and access method as all the other source code that they put up for download.

I suspect that this person is either lying, or that there is far, far more to this story than has been revealed to us.

There's a troll who gets on here sometimes, claiming abuse by the Ubuntu community. Further investigation (and discovery of the thread that was the source of his complaint) revealed HIM to have been the cause of the trouble, and more than a little bit of an asshole. Probably the people replying to this so vehemently have seen that other troll (he's posted his story several times), and have him fresh in mind when the respond to other people who are claiming similar abuse and whose stories sound extremely unlikely. Like this guy.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu does provide the kernel source in a very obvious location. If the exact same place where all the other software is contained isn't obvious, what exactly is?

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Tony Hoyle]

This is of course the point, making the article moot.

It's not necessary for every GPL program that ever uses any other GPL program to provide the entire source, or else it would get ridiculous.

All you have to do is offer the source code to comply with the GPL. Charge for the DVD or bandwidth (DVD is too much hassle).

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Tony Hoyle]

Hey if someone wants to give me 100 million dollars for a bit of source code then they can distribute it all they want.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[ThinkingInBinary]

No. The way it works is you're allowed to charge $X million dollars for the binaries. Once you purchase the binaries (or acquire them otherwise, AFAIK), the source code must be included, available for free, or available for a reasonable fee to cover distribution.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[penix1]

"Is there a problem with "apt-get source linux-image-2.6.15-25-686"?"

He's already replied to this but yes if you don't have a working network.

It is a requirement to make source they used to build the distro available upon request period, end of story, full stop. No snide remarks are really needed. They had the source when they built the distro, and even if they didn't modify a single line of code are required to make the source available upon request if they wish to continue to distribute it. As has been often said here and elsewhere, the GPL covers distribution and Ubuntu is definitely distributing.

B.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[NuclearDog]

"Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means"

MOV AX,4C00
INT 21

Sets AX to 4c00, leaving AH=4C and AL=00.
Int 21, when AH=4C, exits with a return code of AL.

Exits the program with a return code of 0?

ND

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

its a legal requirement (according to the GPL). they should suck it up and give him instructions on where to obtain it.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[rgmoore]

I think the primary concern is, what happens to a distro like MEPIS? Do they need to retain a full and publically available source repository for every package in Ubuntu? That could be an administrative and financial drain.

As another poster said, they only have to provide source for packages for which they provide the binary. If they're providing binaries compiled from modified source code, they'd damn well better be providing the source already. If they provide a binary by refering users to another repository, they can depend on the other repository to provide the source. If they provide the binary by downloading it from an upstream provider and passing it on unaltered, they can do exactly the same thing with the corresponding source package. They only reason that it's a big deal is that they haven't bothered to automate the process; once it's automated it shouldn't be maintainable with minimal effort. And it's unlikely to be a big financial burden because only a small fraction of users will ever download the source anyway.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[jspoon]

The grandparent's point is that the first purchaser could, in theory, take the included source code, remove any copy protections, recompile, and distribute it himself, also under the GPL. He could even sell it as long as he distributes the source.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[SlamMan]

Would "there's a printed copy sitting in our reception area, come pick it up?" work?

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Waffle Iron]

He's already replied to this but yes if you don't have a working network.

Then that's his problem, not Ubuntu's. They satisfied the legal requirement under section 3a of the GPL by making the source available on the same website that they distribute the object code from (with an easy automatic command, no less). If he can't connect with a particular machine, Ubuntu has no obligation to fix his problem for him.

And if he happened to get the distro on a CD, the Ubuntu FAQ has this to say:

We do not normally distribute source CDs and you cannot order them through shipit. That said, in order to comply with the GPL, we are happy to distribute source code on CD to anybody we give a binary CD. More information is written in fine print on the back of each CD. Source for everything on the CD is always available at http://archive.ubuntu.com/ or can be ordered from Canonical for them cost of the media plus shipping.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[jwjcmw]

Maybe you could put it in the display department...you know...

"I had to go down to the cellar."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch," Arthur continued.
"Ah. The lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"Well you found the notice, didn't you?"
"Yes. Yes I did. I found it at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'."

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Ohreally_factor]

That's what they want you to think. Perhaps they're disguising them with a coat of navy blue paint and some pinstripes.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Chops]

Remember, this applies equally to kernel hackers as well as people creating derivatives from other GPL software.

From: mrAngry@snootygits.com
Subject: I want the source code to your system!

I've been the Mr. Angry in this situation -- I'm not sure if it was a language issue, or why, but instead of telling me "the code is in anonymous cvs from XXX under tag YYY," or sending me a copy, the kernel hacker in question basically told me that he wasn't interested in helping me. It meant that I was stuck unable to make necessary reconfigurations to the only working kernel I could find for my handheld; I was basically stuck with a binary blob that I couldn't modify. I knew that the guy was one of the good guys, but it still really sucked being stuck in a situation that (a) left me unable to use Linux on my handheld, even though someone somewhere had got it working, (b) the GPL was designed to prevent, and (c) was, technically, illegal.

Anyone making source modifications to a system must have at least one source copy of the original so be respectful but don't waste your time worrying about it.

For me it was a much greater waste of time not getting the source code; it was such a waste of time that I gave up and shelved my handheld. You may not care about me personally, but you should bear in mind that fulfilling the GPL's conditions is very important, for reasons besides "it's the law."

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Daengbo]

Just go to the Ubuntu website and click on the "Download" link, which I'm sure is how he got Ubuntu in the first place. There at the bottom of the page, it reads (links deleted):

Source code

In accordance with our philosophy and licensing guidelines, source code is made available for all packages in Ubuntu. It can be browsed and downloaded from our archive. Alternatively, one can easily retrieve source code from an networked Ubuntu system by using a terminal to run the command "apt-get source " where is the name of the source package that you would like to download and unpack.

It's much easier finding out how to do that than how to get on the forums or IRC, which he did. The guy was obviously a troll from the very beginning. Anyone who wants source or who understands the GPL knows where to get it. I wish I had mod points for the guy, because he needs to be taken down to "troll."

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[miro f]

from what I saw, he made the request at the forums and not to the ubuntu distributors themselves. The forum goers are under no legal obligation

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[oddfox]

Have you ever used Debian, Ubuntu or a distribution derived from either of those? Are you aware of the fact that apt-get and Synaptic allow for obtaining source packages with little hassle?

If you havn't used it then you're a fool ranting about things you don't know at all (It would be like me making the same accusation of Linspire, having never used their distribution in the least) and should really just leave the discussion to the people who actually are in the know. If you have used it then you're a fool that doesn't seem to have any idea how things work in the distribution. How much more obvious a location for the source packages than the very goddamn repository that contains every other package for the distribution? Pull your head out of your ass.

Quite frankly the first thing a troll does is say that the proof, the evidence that their malcontent is justified, is not really important, it's the big picture, a pathetic attempt to dispell their attempts at rabblerousing. That is exactly what's happened here. If the guy would have proved to us that hey these Ubuntu devs (Nevermind that simply having someone respond to you in a negative fashion in a distributions forums does not mean that the developers of the distribution are endorsing someone being a jackoff to you) are being a bunch of jerks, then he would have had the support of every rationally-minded individual here. Hell, I would have removed the Ubuntu installation I recently helped a friend of mine obtain and recommended him a different one. I would have lost interest in the project myself and stopped recommending it over others. The fact of the matter is that he has no proof of this altercation because it never happened, looking only to get a rise out of people. That, my friend, is trolling at it's finest.

Nevermind that this entire case seems entirely rediculous assuming he is telling the truth. If he had no network access how was he making the inquiries? If he had no network access how were the Ubuntu devs supposed to get the source available to him? Ah but wait they've already thought of that much like every other major Linux distributor! If you need the source code on CD for anything in Ubuntu, you can contact Canonical themselves and have them send you physical media with the sources, for the cost of shipping and handling.

If he was paraphrasing, that's a really nice way to do so. I could paraphrase by saying my mother told me to fuck off by not getting me the toy I asked for in the store, when in fact she really said something entirely different but to the same overall effect in my eyes. Anyways, this is stupid. Take a look at the Download page for Ubuntu Linux at the official website. Or if you're too lazy, here's the snippet that's important with slight modification to make it post right in HTML formatting:

Source code

In accordance with our philosophy and licensing guidelines, source code is made available for all packages in Ubuntu. It can be browsed and downloaded from our archive. Alternatively, one can easily retrieve source code from an networked Ubuntu system by using a terminal to run the command "apt-get source package" where package is the name of the source package that you would like to download and unpack.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Ralph Brown.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Fnkmaster]

Oh, bullshit. If you go around and act nasty and accuse people blindly of "not being compliant" because your head is too far up your ass to see what's going on around you, you should expect to be told to fuck off, and deservedly so.

There is a prominent link on their download page. So you can obtain the source code from the same place they distribute the binaries. This seems to be perfectly compliant with the GPL. Or go type "Ubuntu source code" into Google - it took me 10 seconds to find archive.ubuntu.com.

Nothing mandates coddling of morons. There will always be some self-righteous asshole who thinks the world owes him a hand-holding. To him and those like him, a resounding "fuck you". Learn to treat people with respect and basic decency, and you'll get much farther in life.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Anonymous Coward]

You were given the right answer.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Dahamma]

Otherwise I am willing to post you a CD/DVD containing the entire source code (original and my modifications).

Suppose 50 people a day ask for this, and you are the only one maintaining the distribution?

I guess you could look at it is a full time business opportunity, but should that really be forced upon you just by making a few useful changes to another Linux distro? Even so, I'm not sure I'd relish turning my job into a day full of DVD-burning and stamp-licking...

The point of the article is that this could be prohibively expensive/time comsuming for the smaller distro maintainers to support this. To quote the article, "[Woodford] would prefer to be concentrating on polishing his latest release."

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[l3v1]

I said Ubuntu wasn't being compliant

In Ubuntu every package's source is freely available and downloadable. So if you come along and say thing like that then don't expect a friendly welcome. Not from them, not from anywhere else.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[davidsyes]

Maybe because if the pro-Open Source devs don't have to supply the source code, then the hostile/anti-Open Source or certain bottom-feeders will have the chance to claim precedent. They then could make their own modifications and NOT send the source code, in which case if they compiled and encrypted their kernel, the average or less-than-god Linux/Open Source developer would have a MUCH harder time scrutinizing the code. Hell, the crooked of the developers could then violate GPL/GNU licensing terms and have a magic bullet to shoot Linux in the head. Then where would be be? A one-eyed, lobotomized Tux?

But, maybe they could then just supply the modified code and point back to the original source code and let the interested parties download it from a common source that ALL concerned developers contribute to so only ONE true source with bandwidth communally paid for to worry about.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[joostje]

the kernel hacker in question basically told me that he wasn't interested in helping me.

And who gave you the binary for the kernel? The kernel hacker himself? If not, he's under no obligation to give you the source (at least not by te GPL).

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Anonymous Coward]

You are making the incorrect assumption that it is easier to be an asshole, than to be polite. A polite response can also be concise. You should consider taking your own advice:

"Learn to treat people with respect and basic decency, and you'll get much farther in life."

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[marcovje]

One external 80 GB disc, and one backup. And the nominal fee (as correctly pointed out by the previous poster) can be quite high. (hey, I have to burn and send you 20 DVDs. nominal fee based on a very low Eur15/hr is Eur 100).

I'm not a GPL fanboy as a BSDer, but this is a non issue.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[kjart]

To him and those like him, a resounding "fuck you". Learn to treat people with respect and basic decency, and you'll get much farther in life.

Not familiar with irony?

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on how he made the source available to the people he gave the binaries to.

Try reading the GPL sometime.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[LiquidCoooled]

Obviously you play it by ear.
Theres no point in wasting your upstream bandwidth uploading the entire source tree to every release of your software to the FTP when noone is requesting it.

Its much more sensible to upload your modifications and inform people where the corporate supported base code resides.

If needs change and people start having trouble obtaining the base code or begin requesting the merged source of every release then you change tact, get some more webspace/bandwidth and start uploading everything (by this time, the number of visitors and users will be so much higher that you should have a business model in place to absorb hosting costs, even if it is donation driven)

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I said if what if what he was saying was true (That the source was not available anywhere on the site, which was what I was told), then Ubuntu was not compliant.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[SnowZero]

He's already replied to this but yes if you don't have a working network.

I see, and if someone has a problem with their CD drive (oh and USB and firewire too) are we obligated to give them a print-out of the source? I cannot see how the internet fails to satisfy as "a medium customarily used for software interchange". That is straight from the text of the GPL.

Also, how did he get on Ubuntu forums without network access? Maybe he's making that seem like a bigger hurdle than it was?

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Ginger Unicorn]

can you post a link to that thread, cos i cant find it on ubuntuforums

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[nathanh]

Do they need to retain a full and publically available source repository for every package in Ubuntu?

No, they just have to offer to provide the source code on media (eg, DVD-R) at a reasonable cost.

Mountain. Molehill. This story has no legs.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[johansalk]

What ebay could teach you if you have a busy schedule and limited personal time is that £10 is not worth the time and hassle of burning and posting a DVD.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[arose]

From the GPL:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Now tell where does option "a" (what Ubuntu are doing) require any handholding?

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Anonymous Coward]

He may have an obligation to give the source to the people to whom he gave a binary, but only if they request it. In turn, if the people he gave the binary to redistribute it, they must make the source available as well, which means that they need the kernel hacker's sources. So, the real solution is to demand the source from whoever made the binary kernel, and they can demand the source from the kernel hacker if necessary and applicable.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[civilizedINTENSITY]

If they provide a binary by refering users to another repository, they can depend on the other repository to provide the source.If they provide a binary by refering users to another repository, they can depend on the other repository to provide the source.

Which means they aren't distributing, but are providing information on where other's are distributing? No problem :-)

If they provide the binary by downloading it from an upstream provider and passing it on unaltered, they can do exactly the same thing with the corresponding source package.

This seems to be the misunderstanding that the article is really all about. By actually distributing a binary, you as a distributor seem to become responsible for making the source available. From the very beginning of the article:

...that, because MEPIS has not previously supplied source code for the packages already available from the distribution it is based on -- once Debian, and now Ubuntu -- it is in violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL).

And then a little bit later:

His mistake seems to have been the assumption that, so long as the source code was available somewhere, he did not have to provide it himself if he hadn't modified it.

Automating the process as you describe would automate the GPL violation, which isn't exactly a good approach to rectifying a mistake.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[civilizedINTENSITY]

It is even better than that, because you don't have to purchase the binaries to request the source code, because the obligation to make available said source is extended to "any third party".

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

The easy way is to just distribute the source with the binaries in the first place.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[rgmoore]

If they provide the binary by downloading it from an upstream provider and passing it on unaltered, they can do exactly the same thing with the corresponding source package.

This seems to be the misunderstanding that the article is really all about. By actually distributing a binary, you as a distributor seem to become responsible for making the source available. ... Automating the process as you describe would automate the GPL violation, which isn't exactly a good approach to rectifying a mistake.

No, I was just expressing myself poorly. By "do the same thing" I meant that they can treat the source package the same way that they treat the binary package (i.e. download it and make it available unmodified), not that they can deal with the source package the same way that they do when only referencing another provider. IOW, there are three cases:

1. Packages that they've modified. They should already be distributing the modified source.
2. Packages that they only reference. Not a problem because they're not actually distributing themselves.
3. Packages that they download and redistribute unmodified. Currently a problem, but solvable by automatically downloading and providing the corresponding source package whenever downloading the binary package.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Chops]

And who gave you the binary for the kernel? The kernel hacker himself? If not, he's under no obligation to give you the source (at least not by te GPL).

Yes. I downloaded it from his web site.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Dog-Cow]

"Thank you Ralph Brown."

That's a hell of a lot scarier than the sig in question. I loved that book, btw. The library never did get their copy back, as I recall...

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Tweekster]

Bandwidth is so cheap it is insane. Get shared hosting server account, I have seen them for as little as $5 a month (and they have PLENTY of bandwidth) and put it there. It comes to a whopping 60 bugs a year. It isnt a big deal.
Plus you have a nice shared server for other purposes such as testing and websites.

The administrative "headache" means simply FTPing some files over once in a while.

I honestly dont see why people make this into a big deal. it is a trivial matter. Put some files on an ftp. and be done with it. you may be talking a gig a release, but most vservices give you enough space for 12 releases. More than adequate for the pennies a day you will be paying.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[tpv]

It appears that Ubuntu is not entirely complaint then (based on my reading of their FAQ and the GPL)

The GPL says:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

(emphasis mine)
But the Ubuntu FAQ says "we are happy to distribute source code on CD to anybody we give a binary CD", which is insufficient. However, since I don't have a copy of their binary CD, I can tell what "is written in fine print on the back of each CD", so it may be all covered there.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Something I would like to see, are intelligent folks who take a few days, weeks and months and read a dictionary, and instead of resorting to "common" which means, here, base and profane, (as in not too bright or valuable either, for the context) language which properly falls into street vernacular, use good adjectives and non-street talk, and show a little bit of manner befitting folks who (apparently) have perhaps done some self and or college type of education. I can use profanity all day long, but who, really, wants to read such garbage? I would rather see folks stop the insanity, stop pushing all the buttons, show some education and intelligence, and if you do not know, say so. Makes life very simple, and gets rid of acting out. Chat? wkpickett0154@comcast.net. Chill guys, life is bigger than all this, and it's time we work together- get over your need to lash out, and get in step- it shows discipline, and who knows, you might have a better experience going forward. I do. Cheers.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Fnkmaster]

I don't actually think it's easier, and I don't generally find that being polite takes any effort for me, but I've been around enough nerds to know that many of them take the obnoxious approach when the pleasant approach would do the trick just fine. All it takes is a bit of time on Slashdot to see that.

If you've ever worked at a software company, you see this kind of behavior among your socially inept coworkers all the time. I've had to manage teams of people like this and it isn't fun.

Re:Applies to other GPL software as well

[Fnkmaster]

While one could interpret the original post as irony, I see no particular reason to think, in the context of the thread and other responses, that it was.

In any case, the "fuck you" was meant in a jesting manner anyway. What, couldn't you tell that from my tone? Oh wait, you mean there is no way to know such a thing from a forum post? Oh. Darn.

Uhhh, you can

[QuantumG]

His mistake seems to have been the assumption that, so long as the source code was available somewhere, he did not have to provide it himself if he hadn't modified it.

It's called passing on an offer to supply source code.. it's a part of the GPL. What a load of shit.

Re:Uhhh, you can

[petermgreen]

that only applies to written offers to supply the source code at cost in physical form.

most distros operate under the "offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code" provision which makes no such allowences for redistributors.

Re:Uhhh, you can

[QuantumG]

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

So if Debian is offering binary packages of something that is under the GPL they MUST be offering a written offer under section (b) and therefore you are clearly free to pass that written offer third parties under section (c). Assuming you're not commercially distributing the work, but this guy probably is, so what's so hard about replacing their name with yours. All this is supposed to encourage you to use section (a) and distribute the source code with the binaries.. why is that so hard?

Re:Uhhh, you can

[mindstrm]

No, Debian uses section 3a.

Having the source downloadable from the same page/location as the binaries, or other "equivalent access" satisifes this obligation.

Re:Uhhh, you can

[petermgreen]

continue reading after the section you quoted

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
That is the clause under which most linux distributions operate at least for thier free download services (and debian don't sell copies on physical media themselves).

Re:Uhhh, you can

[LiquidCoooled]

All this is supposed to encourage you to use section (a) and distribute the source code with the binaries.. why is that so hard?

Because it will make every download practically 10 times bigger across the entire board benefitting only the handful of people who might actually be interested in the code.
They currently have a viable means of getting that code so why make it difficult for everyone?

I don't think the net is ready for it yet (38mb to download firefox vs about 5 currently, 350mb for openoffice 90-120 currently)

Re:Uhhh, you can

[DragonWriter]

that only applies to written offers to supply the source code at cost in physical form.

The phrase "physical form" does not appear in the relevant section of the GPL, the language there is "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". That extends far beyond physical form; it does require a written offer, however, which may or may not be problematic ("written" can include fixed information in electronic form; whether it does or not in the GPL probably depends on which jurisdiction's law the licenses is interpreted under.)

Re:Uhhh, you can

[drinkypoo]

If you're in the US then an electronic version should be good; after all, the federal government ruled that an electronic signature is valid some time ago; so you might have to sign it or something to make it a valid "document" :)

Re:Uhhh, you can

[munpfazy]

Because it will make every download practically 10 times bigger across the entire board benefitting only the handful of people who might actually be interested in the code.

In order to fulfill your obligation under the GPL, you don't have to put the source in the same tar file as the binary, just on the same server. The user is still free to choose to download only the binary.

Re:Uhhh, you can

[renehollan]

So if Debian is offering binary packages of something that is under the GPL they MUST be offering a written offer under section (b) and therefore you are clearly free to pass that written offer third parties under section (c). Assuming you're not commercially distributing the work, but this guy probably is, so what's so hard about replacing their name with yours. All this is supposed to encourage you to use section (a) and distribute the source code with the binaries.. why is that so hard?

Because non-commercial redistribution under (c) requires someone else to distribute under (b), and, AFAIK, neither Debian, nor Red Hat (including Fedora), or anyone other major distro does this. Instead they distribute under (a).

The practical upshot is that your upstream provider can go *poof*, which is quite alright for them: they don't have to distribute source anymore when they stop distributing binaries.

Arguments about version skew between upstream and downstream distros are moot as long as you take care to update the third party unmodified stuff in your distro when the upstream provider does: the GPL applies to individual software packages and not the aggregate.

Frankly, the FSF could provide a service, for a fee, where they agree to host the sources according to (b) to what you redistribute under (c). First one needing this service pays the storage costs for the requisite three years out on an ongoing basis. Others pay a discounted rate for the same data, with the difference credited toward future storage charges of those already paying. The FSF, in turn, could charge for downloads or distribution on physical media, with some part credited to contributors.

Popular packages could pay for their own storage eventually and might even earn a small profit for the contributors. There remain issues (not the least of which is profiting from someone else's work by simply making it available), but I think the market can take care of them. (If you don't like someone getting roalties from your code, distribute it yourself.)

Re:Uhhh, you can

[Tony Hoyle]

that only applies to written offers to supply the source code at cost in physical form.

Wrong.

The GPL specifies 'a medium commonly used for software interchange'.

The internet is such a medium.

Therefore a written offer to send them a URL is fine.

Re:Uhhh, you can

[ajs318]

Binary packages are an ugly kludge dating back to the days of slow processors and analogue modems. They have been retained long after the need to keep them has expired. Faster processors have reduced compilation times, and ADSL has tenfolded download speeds ..... twice.

If you're wanting to build your own distro, you'd probably do as well ditching binary packages altogether; they really are more bother than they're worth. {Except for initial bootstrapping, of course}. Just have your packages download, compile and install themselves from a single command.

Re:Uhhh, you can

[QuantumG]

I'd go further than that. There's no reason why you cant have compilation be a transparent part of running a program. For example, when you run a python script it is silently compiled into a bytecode representation and stored in a .pyc file which is then run by the virtual machine. The fact that Java still requires you to invoke the compiler yourself and encourages the distribution of class files (which are only a little short of being sourcecode themselves) says more about the people who use Java than it does about the technology available.

rtfa and still don't get it

[seanadams.com]

Why should the "upstream" or "bigger" distro supplier be obligated to distribute source code for YOUR particular distribution? Of course _somebody_ needs to be responsible for making the source available, otherwise the entire spirit of the GPL is unenforceable...

It makes sense to me that the person distributing the binaries should be responsible for making source code available for said binaries. That is how the license is written, and it is very straight forward. No surprise here - so what is the complaint?

Do we really want everyone and their brother shipping their own MyFirstDistro as binary only, just because the sources are individually (hopefully, for the time being) available elsewhere? Is it fair to put that burden on someone else?

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[also-rr]

Why should the "upstream" or "bigger" distro supplier be obligated to distribute source code for YOUR particular distribution?

Bear in mind that, although not directly related to cases where changes are made, handing out CDs to friends *is also* distribution, but thanks to section 3(c) of the license you are perfectly able to refer them to the "bigger" distro supplier for the source code.

There are cases where indeed the big fish are required to provide source code hosting for the smaller distributors.

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[ClamIAm]

It sounds like you do get it.

However, like the other reply to your comment stated, there are some instances when the "upstream" provider does have to make the source available.

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[Brandybuck]

It's not just distros, it's ANYONE who distributes the software. Including you! If you burn a copy of SimplyMepis for your friend, then you are obligated to *personally* make the sources available to him. Telling him to download the sources from Mepis just isn't good enough. Or at least that's the way today's interpretation of the GPL reads.

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[DragonWriter]

Bear in mind that, although not directly related to cases where changes are made, handing out CDs to friends *is also* distribution, but thanks to section 3(c) of the license you are perfectly able to refer them to the "bigger" distro supplier for the source code.

Actually, technically, that's pretty clearly not right; if the upstream distributor didn't use the written offer option in 3(b), which most don't, you can't use the 3(c) option to pass on that written offer—as 3(c) is expressly limited to passing on a written offer received under 3(b)—since you never received such an offer; you are, therefore, obligated to either provide the source code (under 3(a)) or provide a written offer, valid for at least three years, to whoever you give the object/executable software to that you will provide the source code, at your cost (under 3(b)).

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[jonored]

Strictly speaking, if you got the sources in binary-only format with an offer of the source if you want it, then you are only obligated to refer them to the upstream provider. Section 3 c. Downloading an ISO image, burning it, and giving it to them is in binary format, and telling them to go download the sources from Mepis is explicitly good enough. On the other hand, if you were commercially distributing those discs, or had received them in non-binary format, then you'd need to make the sources available yourself.

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least that's the way today's interpretation of the GPL reads.

That's the way it's always read, and will probably always read. You can't simply automatically point someone to a third party and say "go get the source from them", because what happens if the third party closes up shop? The only case you're allowed to do this is when the source of your software uses the "3b" clause (written offer to provide source code for at least the next 3 years) and you pass that on with the software when you distribute it (the "3c" clause).

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=189715&c id=15616765 posted the relevant section of the GPL you can read to see these clauses. There is a separate clause another post pointed out that covers download distribution, that says if you only have online access to your binaries (no physical media distribution), then all you need to do is have the source downloadable from the same place.

As far as Mepis goes, other comments here have mentioned that it's very fragile with regard to package versions and therefore it's not compatible with the standard debian repositories, and attempting to use one causes it to break, which is a clear sign that saying "go there for your source" is the wrong thing to do since the version there might not be the version you need.

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[Minwee]

"Why should the "upstream" or "bigger" distro supplier be obligated to distribute source code for YOUR particular distribution?"

Because when they distributed that code to you, they were bound by the same GPL as you are. They are obligated to provide you with the source code should you or any third party ask for it, just like you are.

Why is it so hard to read the GPL?

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly

If you dont want to do this then offer your code under a BSD or other free license.

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[Sancho]

Of course, first sale distribution is legal without the consent of the original copyright owner. How does this fit in with the GPL? Can't I pass on my legally owned copy of GPL'd software for free without having to respect the GPL's source distribution clause?

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[Grail]

No, you have to provide a written offer valid for at least three years to provide the source code to whoever requests it for a reasonable fee. Invoice them for whatever it costs you to produce the source distribution media - this would include time and materials, since you wouldn't want to end up losing money if a thousand people asked for source code over the thee year lifespan of the offer.

The GPL is not about making people bankrupt, it's about giving the end users the freedom to modify the programs that they're using.

Ideally you'd package the complete source with/alongside your binary distribution.

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

No conflict at all that I see. If you got it from a 3(a) then you got the source at purchase and you can be a 3(a) when you sell. If you got it from a 3(b) then you can be a 3(c) when you sell.

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you only had to supply the source if you modified it?

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[DragonWriter]

Of course, first sale distribution is legal without the consent of the original copyright owner. How does this fit in with the GPL? Can't I pass on my legally owned copy of GPL'd software for free without having to respect the GPL's source distribution clause?

I think you can probably pass on media you acquired already containing GPL'd software without complying with the GPL source distribution terms, particularly if you acquired the software without ever having agreed to the GPL as a condition of acquiring the physical copy.

Re:rtfa and still don't get it

[Brandybuck]

You make exactly the same argument that the article makes.

GPL?

[Black Parrot]

Wouldn't any license be a headache for a small distro provider? How many packages in an average distro, for a team of 2-3 people to validate compliance on?

Re:GPL?

[Pieroxy]

Wouldn't any license be a headache for a small distro provider?
To be fair, I think a BSD license is not a very big burden to anyone, small or big.

Re:GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

> To be fair, I think a BSD license is not a very big burden to anyone, small or big.

You'd be surprised how many people strip copyrights out when reorganizing code, calling them mere boilerplate. That of course is a violation of the BSD license.

Re:GPL?

[Shrithe]

Well, if you provide as much as your system as possible under the BSD license, it'd be a lot simplier. If you're building a linux distro this way, you'd have the linux kernel, obviously, and probably the GCC and some other GNU tools like that under the GPL, but there's good BSD replacements for just about anything else.

You might have a bigger job of getting it all to fit together, but you could do it, and then you wouldn't have to be terribly concerned about licensing issues.

Re:GPL?

[AvitarX]

The "Do What The Fuck you want to Public License" is truly the easest.

WTFPL text is here

Re:GPL?

[upside]

You have no idea how big an issue licensing is. My view is this is the other big difference (apart from extended support for each release) between hobbyist and enterprise distros. Think of these the next time you ask why there are so few packages in distro X compared to Debian.

Even the enterprise distros can't satisfy the most careful of customers. Open source is good, but big companies that are juicy targets for litigious patent trolls want to be veeery careful.

A guy I know works for an employer with "enough" legal resources and a commitment to open source. The legal eagles go through EVERY source file in a distro they use and tell the engineers "you can't use file AAAA.h because of missing attribution nor feature ZZZZ because of patents". They get lots of giggles and headaches from this because these are sometimes trivial things like manpages or obvious features you'd never think would be covered by potentially problematic patents.

Goes to show how important copyright and patent legislation is, so a "good job" to Slashdot for keeping the readers up to date with what's going on.

This is nothing new...

[Old Man Kensey]

I seem to recall various incidents in the past few years (a DVR maker comes to mind, though I can't remember which) where commercial products used GPL software unchanged, failed to distribute source (pointing people to the maintainer of the software), and the FSF and community raised a fuss. So I don't understand why this is suddenly such a light-bulb moment.

People who do not read license...

[also-rr]

...surprised when their guess as to what is required is not correct. Film at 11.

Wikipedia has a pretty good plain English translation of the requirements to distribute GPL software.

Re:People who do not read license...

[also-rr]

Apparently I am also one of those who did not read the license carefully enough - it's a good job I don't redistribute GPL software.

These projects may be covered under section 3 (c) of the license:

(relating to pre-compiled binary distribution)
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

I don't know about you but I would read that as, provided no changes have been made, stating that a link to the MEPIS source code repository was adequate if that was the nature of the offer recieved when the MEPIS binaries were downloaded, provided the sub-distro is non commercial.

In any event for non-commercial sub-distros I cannot see that a violation in word but not spirit of such a minor nature would cause any eyebrows to be raised, generally you have to work quite hard to get sued under the GPL.

For commercial entities then it's an entirley different matter, but if they don't take the time to read and understand the license then, well, words fail me.

Re:People who do not read license...

[ray-auch]

These projects may be covered under section 3 (c) of the license:


Only if the upstream distributor uses 3(b).

If they used 3(a) - as most do - then the downstream guy has no written offer to pass on.

Re:People who do not read license...

[xenocide2]

Of course, MEPIS is a one man commercial affair. It's one guy who decided to try making a profit at this. And it requires the upstream to offer b). b) is more than a publicly available FTP. B requires you to offer the source code to ALL comers for 3 years. For every binary version you release under the GPL. So its no surprise that this subsection is rarely followed, and you might see if the GPL 3 still includes this.

But I can't see any commercial distribution refusing to offer source code to unmodified binaries in direct contradiction to the GPL for very long. At the very least, they should be able to accomodate a request via the same route they had intended the recipient to use.

Justin

We need a GPL police to enforce the GPL

[Serveert]

Requirements for being in this police force include an aversion to shaving, showering and doing laundry. Punishment will involve rubbing the face of violators with the dirtiest beard in the police force.

Re:We need a GPL police to enforce the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

This "police force" has quite a few unwashed beards to choose from.

Re:We need a GPL police to enforce the GPL

[kimvette]

You have to be French?

(I'm kidding, I'm KIDDING)

This article is FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL only requires that one provide the source code if asked, and it is perfectly legal to send it via postal mail for a nominal fee.

I can't imagine that anyone is actually asking these small Linux distributions to provide the source code for the Linux kernel when it is available for a free download.

Re:This article is FUD

[linvir]

Word you left out in bold:

I can't imagine that anyone reasonable is actually asking these small Linux distributions to provide the source code for the Linux kernel when it is available for a free download.

Re:This article is FUD

[Sancho]

This shouldn't have been modded 'insightful'. It's filled with the same misinformation that most of the rest of the posts contain.

If you as a distributor do not provide the source code in accordance with section 3a of the GPL, then the distributor must comply with 3b or 3c. 3c requires that your upstream provider provided the code in accordance with 3b. If they used 3a, then your only option is 3b.

3b is quite clear:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

The written offer for the code must accompany the distribution of the binary or object code. How many of these small providers say on the download page, "Say, if you'd like this code, shoot us an e-mail!"? Probably none, because most people never really read the GPL--they just assume its conditions based on FUD and misinformation.

Now if Mepis is providing this written offer, then yes, they only have to provide the source code if asked. However I went to the site, followed the links to the mirrors, and was never provided with a written offer of source code. I have not yet mounted my ISO to see if it's on there (it's still downloading), but my guess is that it isn't.

The problem here isn't that the source isn't available somewhere--it's that the GPL is vital to Linux. If we start letting some people disregard it, why not all? Why not let Microsoft rip parts of the Kernel out of the tree and use it in their own OSs? Why not let someone sell Linux on a router and not provide the source code/modifications?

Re:This article is FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood the GPL distribution clause:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

Does (b) mean that, if my salary is $100/hr and it takes me 1 hour to get the disc, burn the disc, and send it via mail, that I can charge each requestor $100? That is, after all, my cost for performing the source distribution.

Re:This article is FUD

[Britz]

Please keep this guy modded up. I was going to post this answer myself, since this is such a no brainer. Even if someone would be asking these small Linux distributions to provide the source code they could point to upstream and mail their changes.

Re:This article is FUD

[wmansir]

Would it be compliant, according to the FSF, if the MEPIS distributor said the code was available upon request, and if requested pointed the user to an upstream provider's (or really anyone providing identical source files) free public depository? This is of course assuming the files are available.

I can understand the requirement for the MEPIS destributor to be responsible for maintaining the source availability, but I don't think it is necessary to require the distributor to personally distribute the source if it is generally available. If the source were to become unavailble then the distributor would be obligated to fulfill request, otherwise it seems to be an undue burden.

Re:This article is FUD

[Sancho]

The three clauses are pretty clear, but I'll try to sum them up. You must do one of the following if you want to redistribute GPL'd code:

3a: Give the code or the option of the code at the same time as the binary. Pointing someone to another site for the code does not count.

3b: Give a written offer for the code, good for 3 years. This means that for three years from the last time you distributed the software, you must give the code to someone who asks for it.

3c: If-and-only-if you received a written offer for code when you received the binary, yourself, then you may include a copy of the written offer you received in place of offering the source code yourself.

Most people use 3a or don't even bother distributing binaries and only distribute source. If you received the binary/source in this way, your only options for redistribution of source are 3a or 3b, neither of which allow you to "point back to your upstream".

You may not think it should be required, but the GPL is pretty simple and pretty clear.

Quit whining, distro makers

[Animats]

OK, these "distro makers" are downloading vast amounts of material covered by the GPL for free and then redistributing it for money or advertising. (MEPIS sticks in an Earthlink signup icon, for example.) And then they whine that they have to provide the source for the free stuff they're reselling.

Even worse, some of these distro makers want you to sign up for a "support contract". If they don't have a repository of the source, their support probably isn't worth much.

Re:Quit whining, distro makers

[2nd Post!]

OK, these "distro makers" are downloading vast amounts of material covered by the GPL for free and then redistributing it for money or advertising.

This is perfectly acceptable to the GPL, to my understanding.

The problem arises when someone wants the source and the distro maker does not have the capability of providing it; they are obligated to provide it, even if it's a measly single line patch+original source.

Re:Quit whining, distro makers

[mindstrm]

Of course it's perfectly acceptable. Parent is only pointing out the irony of making money off someone elses work, then whining that you have to abide by the same rules regarding source that allowed you to have your distribution in the first place.

Re:Quit whining, distro makers

[2nd Post!]

That is definitely not how I interpreted the parent post. To quote:

And then they whine that they have to provide the source for the free stuff they're reselling.

It sounds more like the parent poster is saying, "then whining that you have to provide source to stuff they haven't modified but are selling and distributing," which is distinctly different from what you say, "then whining that you have to abide by the same rules regarding source that allowed you to have your distribution in the first place."

In other words, a distro maker has to provide the whole distro, even if they only change one line, which isn't implied by your statement, "you have to abide by the same rules regarding source that allowed you to have your distribution in the first place."

Your statement expects the reader to know what "the same rules" are, while the parent post seems very clear: The rule to follow is, "if you are selling it or distributing it, you have to provide the source, even if you didn't write the source."

Re:Quit whining, distro makers

[Anonymous Coward]

That is definitely not how I interpreted the parent post.

Then you're an idiot.

You deliberately misquoted the original post, and then get defensive when you're called on it?

You're an asshat.

Re:Quit whining, distro makers

[mindstrm]

Nope. Re-read section 3 of the GPL, specifically 3c.

If you are merely re-distributing, non-commercially, and unaltered, you do NOT have to provide source, and can simply point the user to the upstream provider whom you received the binary from. Section 3c.

If you ARE commercial in some way, then 3c is not availalb to you, and you ahve to use 3a or 3b, you have no cause to whine.. you were given something for free and are now making money off it, providing source is part of your obligation.

Re:Quit whining, distro makers

[2nd Post!]

Wait, hold that thought.

If you are re-distributing non-commercially and unaltered code you do not have to provide source.

The flip side is that if either of the two clauses are FALSE, you do have to provide source:

If you are re-distributing commercially but unaltered code, you do have to provide source.
If you are re-distributing non-commercially and altered code, you do have to provide source.

The only way you can "simply point the user to the upstream provider" is if you are non commercial AND unaltered. As soon as you apply a patch, you are no longer unaltered, even if you are non-commercial, and if you are commercial, even if you are providing unaltered code, you need to provide the source.

So my point still holds.

So what?

[fm6]

This could make life difficult for those small distros that are being maintained by one or two people in their spare time due to the high amount of work it creates.

And who would be affected if these distros stopped being maintained? Nobody in their right mind is going to rely on a software project that is somebody's hobby.

This doesn't really kill one-man distros, it just means that the one man can't go through the pointless ritual of creating an ISO that nobody actually uses. So big deal. If you want to have fun by creating your very own Linux distro, nobody's stopping you. But if you want to create a distro (or any other open source project) that people will actually use, you have to learn to work with others.

Re:So what?

[Bluesman]

>Nobody in their right mind is going to rely on a software project that is somebody's hobby.

Best. Irony. Ever.

Re:So what?

[krack]

Nobody in their right mind is going to rely on a software project that is somebody's hobby.

What is the criteria for any open source project leaving 'hobby' status? To put it another way, when did people of 'right mind' start using Linux, which started out as Linus' hobby?

Re:So what?

[QuantumG]

The world has changed, and it'll do it again.

Re:So what?

[at_slashdot]

Oh, man, why can't I mod your post higher! And it's not only funny, it's also insightful.

Re:So what?

[blibbler]

Well, it is 2006 and it hasn't happened yet.

Re:So what?

[asuffield]

This could make life difficult for those small distros that are being maintained by one or two people in their spare time due to the high amount of work it creates.

And who would be affected if these distros stopped being maintained?

If the creator cannot manage the VERY SIMPLE things required to comply with the GPL, then it's a safe bet that they aren't actually managing to maintain the thing either. But I don't believe either of these is the case here.

Really, this article is a whole load of whinging about nothing. These MEPIS guys can manage to put together a distribution that is sold directly through their own web store, and yet they cannot manage to copy the source code to a single public server? Pull the other one, it has got bells on. They must have the source code; they merely need to place it on a web server and/or offer to burn it to a DVD for anybody who asks. Anybody who is reading this comment should be fully capable of doing these things with minimal effort.

This is just somebody who was caught being ignorant about the GPL and feels the need to blame the system for their own mistake. The GPL is not 'causing them problems'. This is not news, let alone for nerds, and it's not stuff that matters.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody in their right mind is going to rely on a software project that is somebody's hobby.

does that make me left minded? i use - and very much like - simply mepis on my home box.

i haven't installed the new mepis ubuntu deriv, but i like my current set up (the release just prior to the ubuntu switch).

apparently, so do the other two left minded users. ;-)

Re:So what?

[fm6]

I can't give precise answers to those questions. Why should I have to? A boundary can be fuzzy and still have cases on one side or the other. We may disagree whether Elvis Presley or Terry Shiavo being alive, but most people would agree as to Julius Caesar and Barry Gibb.

By the same token, a software project is somebody's hobby if it only has one person devoting minimal time to it on an irregular basis, and a serious project when several people are contributing a lot of time on a regular basis. Linux was clearly a hobby when it was something LT coded for his own use, and gave away to friends, and not a hobby now that it's supported by hundreds of companies who have billions invested in it. When exactly does the transition occur? Who gives a shit? I'm too busy staring at my kitten, waiting for him to become a cat.

Re:So what?

[Fjornir]

Mod it overrated. Then come in with your other account and mod it insightful.

Re:So what?

[CAIMLAS]

If I recall correctly, quite a few existing projects started off as a "one man project". One person had a dream, and then others liked it, so started helping.

Re:So what?

[fm6]

Yeah, yeah, a journey of 1,000 miles, yada yada. That's not the point. We're not talking about people who are struggling to create an new OSS project. We're talking about people who are who are just fiddling around. If you're going to create a bold new product, you have to make commitments. You'll need to give up a lot of your extra time, you need to put in a lot of work, and you'll have to learn to work with other people. If you're not willing to do these things, than your project has no hope in the first place.

well

[Anonymous Coward]

I really like using Linux distros. I've been using MEPIS for a year. I'd hate to see it go away because fscking ubuntu just plain doesnt work on my cheapo hp pavillion ze4900 laptop and i'm not enough of a masochist to try and install slackware or gentoo (no offense to users of either distro).

What about things like GNU Classpath

[dodald]

GNU Classpath is licensed under the GPL with an exception:

Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.

Would this also mean that people who use GNU Classpath in closed source applications would be required to supply the source? Even though they may never have used the source.

Re:What about things like GNU Classpath

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The class that contains public static void main is an independent module.

Re:What about things like GNU Classpath

[CCFreak2K]

From my experience, they would only have to make available the source code to the objects that were GPL in the first place.

Re:What about things like GNU Classpath

[spitzak]

No. This exception means you *don't* have to include the GNU Classpath source or anything else from it.

The line you are confused by is probably "provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and condition sof the license of that module". It takes a bit of re-reading to realize that this is talking about the *other* modules, not GNU Classpath. Ie if you link GNU Classpath with the Linux kernel, the GNU Classpath exception does not allow you to violate the GPL on the resulting Linux kernel. Of course, this should be obvious (NOTHING in GNU Classpath could have any effect on the copyright for unrelated software!), so it would be nice if they didn't bloat the license with extra clauses that have no effect like this and confuse the readers.

Re:What about things like GNU Classpath

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they are worried that without that clause, a crafty lawyer could argue that the FSF just gave them permission to link other FSF-owned software such as GCC with GNU Classpath and distribute the result on commercial terms. FSF is after all the copyright holder of a whole lot of GNU software.

What about FTP mirrors?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about public FTP mirrors (such as run by many universities) that distribute binary packages/CD images/...? Do they have special agreements with the projects they mirror? Otherwise I guess they have to provide the source for any version they ever distributed for a period of three years too.

Re:What about FTP mirrors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Binary-only mirrors are fairly rare. Are you sure the mirrors you're thinking of don't have the source somewhere?

the point of the GPL

[drDugan]

I'm not an expert on this ... but

I thought the point of the GPL was to encourage people to share and reuse code. Enforcing that EACH person who reuses code also shares it themselves is counter to this intention. The effect will be less reuse and less sharing overall. Obviously someone has to make it available, and when and upstream provider stops doing so, everyone else would have to pick up the slack. ... but enforcing this is actually counter to the intent of the GPL as far as I can see.

Re:the point of the GPL

[Vexorian]

The objective of the GPL is to encourage people to share code but to maintain and update the code for the original software's benefits as opposed to encourage them to share and reuse the code. I don't really like this approach. I'd also like it to encourage people to share and reuse code. That's the reason I prefer the FreeBSD license over of the GPL. The one I use for my hobby from scratch projects is zlib though.

Re:the point of the GPL

[madcow_bg]

You are cleary not an expert;)

Sorry for the harsh words, but everybody who distributes the package is obliged to supply the source code as well. You can use it without limitations. So, if you modify it, you MUST supply it. Otherwise, how can someone prove it has been modified?

Re:the point of the GPL

[cyclop]

I thought the point of the GPL was to encourage people to share and reuse code. Enforcing that EACH person who reuses code also shares it themselves is counter to this intention.

Quite an oxymoron.

If the point is to share AND reuse, why enforcing sharing along with reusing is against sharing and reusing?

Re:the point of the GPL

[Brandybuck]

I thought the point of the GPL was to encourage people to share and reuse code.

No, the point of the GPL is to sue people you don't like. It's purpose is to be a big legal club you can bash people over the head wth. This may sound cynical, but if you reexamine the history of the GPL with this in mind, it will all suddenly start making sense.

Re:the point of the GPL

[Tony Hoyle]

So if you hand someone a Redhat CD you *must* also give them the Redhat source CDs even though they don't want them otherwise you violate GPL?

Heh. There can't be a person on slashdot that isn't in violation at some point.

Re:the point of the GPL

[renehollan]

So if you hand someone a Redhat CD you *must* also give them the Redhat source CDs even though they don't want them otherwise you violate GPL?

Yes.

Or, you could offer to provide the sources any time in the next three years, to them, and anyone else to whom they redistribute.

To get around this, you offer them the source CDs at the same time as the binaries, and make it clear that they get either or both, but can't come back to you for what they didn't get. You must be prepared to make good on the source CDs offered, though.

Re:the point of the GPL

[Tony Hoyle]

At a show a debian guy handed me a copy of debian. He did *not* offer me source at that time. Is he in violation? Is debian breaking GPL by distributing their CD at shows without training their people to make offers of the source to everyone they meet?

Every month a magazine has a distro on the cover. They also ship other GPL apps, compiled. They do *not* normally supply source, just a credit to the original website and author. Are they in violation?

If you take it to extremes like you are trying to do it just means it'll kill GPL use.. nobody will be able to get free distros any more.

Re:the point of the GPL

[Antique Geekmeister]

What you're asking for is a convenient loophole. Unfortunately, it's very easy for a discarded GPL project to be used in another GPL product. That would prevent new contributorss from gaining a full set of source code: the modifier would only have to provide their changes, even if the original is over 3 years old and is no longer distributed or is even deprecated and the earlier GPL copyright holder has gone out of business.

Such loopholes are nasty indeed to cope with. Let's face it: the burden of keeping a full copy of a distributed source code tree is very modest, and worth doing to avoid something actively in use having its source code lost even though it's still in use.

Re:the point of the GPL

[Fjornir]

At a show a debian guy handed me a copy of debian. He did *not* offer me source at that time. Is he in violation? Is debian breaking GPL by distributing their CD at shows without training their people to make offers of the source to everyone they meet?

Dunno. Depends, I guess. First question is about "a debian guy" -- are you talking about some officially sanctioned entity of the Debian Project? If that's the case then probably not. Debian is certainly equipped to fulfill the GPL 3(b) provision of responding to a request for sources. More likely the "debian guy" was some Debian fan, handing out Debian CDs. He may very well have been in violation -- 3(c) is not going to be applicable for stuff acquired directly from Debian to the best of my knowledge. But he might also have used media from a 3(b) re-distributor of Debian (or he might have BEEN a 3(b) re-distributor of Debian -- there are 30ish in the US alone), and as long as the offer for source was on the media then the 3(c) clause would say he's not in violation.

Re:the point of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not an expert, but your harsh words sound like you probably aren't either.

From section 3 of the the GNU GPL:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

So, at worst case (if you are a commercial org) you may need to provide DVDs or similar to the few people that request it for the cost of distributing it to them - I dunno, $10/$20 dollars for media and an hours work or so.

So, don't sweat it. No need to have a permanent online archive of all source. Just keep your diffs and supply them with the original source to those that request it. Whatever it costs you to supply it to them you charge. I'm sure most would be happy with just the diffs and a pointer to the upstream source if they aren't total license pedants.

Re:the point of the GPL

[Sancho]

It's a big presumtion that the written offer of source code was on the CD. But obviously, this is not something we can readily determine.

As for the software in the CDs on the magazines (the other poster mentioned)--again, it depends entirely upon whether the source was available on the CD or whether there was a written offer for the magazine to offer the source upon request OR whether they had such a letter from their distributor.

It's not really all that hard to figure out if you're compliant--unless it's referring to an event from years ago when you weren't really paying attention anyway.

Re:the point of the GPL

[renehollan]

At a show a debian guy handed me a copy of debian. He did *not* offer me source at that time. Is he in violation? Is debian breaking GPL by distributing their CD at shows without training their people to make offers of the source to everyone they meet?

Depends. Was source already on the CD you were handed? Did he represent an organization that had a standing (b) sourece offer?

Every month a magazine has a distro on the cover. They also ship other GPL apps, compiled. They do *not* normally supply source, just a credit to the original website and author. Are they in violation?

Quite possibly.

If you take it to extremes like you are trying to do it just means it'll kill GPL use.. nobody will be able to get free distros any more.

You can't get free distros without rights to get the source, and you can't give free distros without providing source.

The GPL is not about use. It's about preserving certain freedoms.

Re:the point of the GPL

[Fjornir]

It's a big presumtion that the written offer of source code was on the CD. But obviously, this is not something we can readily determine.

It depends. If he was just a random Debian fan you're right, it is unlikely. If he was an authorized Debian agent (or an authorized agent of someone who redistributes Debian) then I'd guess you're wrong. I'd be willing to give the people who make a business out of selling GPL software the benefit of the doubt and assume that they know what their obligations are.

Re:the point of the GPL

[mindstrm]

They don't have to; they are re-distributing under section 3c of the GPL.

You are free to burn Debian CDs and hand them out, without any further obligation on your part to provide source.

The original source, cited on the CDs, is available from the Debian group online.

Re:the point of the GPL

[renehollan]

They don't have to; they are re-distributing under section 3c of the GPL

But, that requires (a) said distribution to be non-commercial and (b) someone to distribute under 3(b). Does Debian guarantee availability to all comers for three years?

Re:the point of the GPL

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Imagine this: A hobbyist builds a really nice piece of PVR software, GPLs it and offers it for download. A large company then takes the code, packages it and starts selling in the millions. When people ask the company for source, they just point to the hobbyist web page.

Does it sound reasonable to you that upstream pays for the bandwidth after they have already given the product out for free?

Re:the point of the GPL

[IpalindromeI]

I thought the point of the GPL was to encourage people to share and reuse code.

No, the point of the GPL is to ensure that the users have access to the source of the systems they use. That is all.

Re:the point of the GPL

[civilizedINTENSITY]

You are under obligation to pass along the offer, though.

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

This also seems to be the answer to those who worry about "the little guy". If you are noncommercial, then you do have rules that make your life simplier.

I have an idea

[Ethan Allison]

Why don't we completely rewrite the kernel from scratch and license it under something else?

Wait, I've heard that idea before somewhere...

Better check with

[WebHostingGuy]

Darryl first. He will probably want a license fee even if he has never heard of your distribution.

Re:Better check with

[Anonymous Coward]

Darryl first. He will probably want a license fee even if he has never heard of your distribution.

The bloodless freak's name is Darl, not Darryl.

Re:Better check with

[WebHostingGuy]

I would have typed correctly "the one whom we do not mention" in, but I didn't want to be sued a second time by the nameless one.

Ad ?

[slashdot_nobody_nowh]

I like Mepis; the newest release is expected on July the 10th or so - nice way to remind about the distro :-).

The FSF has specific reccomendations...

[Anonymous Coward]

Their favorite reccomendation is that you *distribute the source along with your modified binaries* That way, you've automatically fulfilled that part of the GPL right from the start.

Re:Big deal

[NotQuiteInsane]

The obvious problem being that a lot of ISPs these days (especially UK-based ISPs) are blocking or severely throttling torrent traffic. It makes it rather slow to grab the latest Fedora ISOs...

The obvious solution to this problem is to provide a HTTP or FTP server to grab it from, but the catch is how are you going to get that multi-gigabyte file onto the server in the first place, unless both you and the server have got an uberfast connection?

Dedicated servers aren't the most expensive things in the universe (£80pm for a 2.4GHz server with 512MB RAM, 80GB HDD, and a 10Mbit direct pipe to the Internet last time I checked) but they can be a bit of a pig to admin...

the killer bees are almost here

[jaydonnell]

this is typical sensational journalism. Who exactly are they in trouble with? Is someone going to sue them? Of course not! No one cares if somebody packages up a linux and distributes it to 3 people.

Re:the killer bees are almost here

[Otter]

If you read to the second line of the article, MEPIS got a threatening letter from the FSF.

Re:the killer bees are almost here

[KarmaMB84]

And what if the upstream providers decided they wanted to get rid of the downstream "leeches" who are just pointing people at their FTPs (and stealing their customers!).

Re:the killer bees are almost here

[jaydonnell]

Mepis is pretty popular no? They should provide the sources. They aren't some tiny upstart that no one knows.

Re:the killer bees are almost here

[jaydonnell]

They have every right to, but hypotheticals are not reality. It simply won't happen. It would cost way too much in legal fees to stop all the joe shmoe linux distros. But if some unknown linux distro becomes the next ubuntu then they should provide the sources. Also you post seems to be implying that the "upstreams" can shut down the "downstreams". That implication is wrong. there is nothing prevent the "downstreams" from providing the sources.

So offer the source code.

[T-Ranger]

At a reasonable price. My billable rate is CAD$78/hr. Minimum 3 hour callout, plus materials, and shipping.

HTH, HAND

Re:So offer the source code.

[wirelessbuzzers]

Sorry, you are only allowed to charge for your physical costs of disribution.

Re:So offer the source code.

[T-Ranger]

plus materials, and shipping.

Re:So offer the source code.

[Tony Hoyle]

Billable hourly rate *is* a physical cost of distribution.

My time is not free. If I had to retrieve the source to 1000 packages and burn 20 DVDs full of it, then post it to another country it's going to take me a couple of days *and* the postage is a bitch.

$100 an hour is not an unreasonable price for that. 2 days.. 16 hours, $1600, plus another $200 postage and packaging.

Only copyright holders can sue, and they won't

[MarkByers]

If someone comes up to you and demands the source code rudely, you can politely tell them to fetch the code from the same place you got it from. You can send source files for anything you have changed or added.

The angry user cannot legally sue you since they do not own the rights to the source code. The chances are the original programmer won't try to sue you either. They would have nothing to gain by doing so, unless you are making tons of money from your distribution (and if so, you can afford to mirror the entire source code). As long as you are reasonable you should be fine.

Just relax, and get on with making the next version.

Re:Only copyright holders can sue, and they won't

[petard]

If someone comes up to you and demands the source code rudely, you can politely tell them to fetch the code from the same place you got it from. You can send source files for anything you have changed or added.

The angry user cannot legally sue you since they do not own the rights to the source code. The chances are the original programmer won't try to sue you either. They would have nothing to gain by doing so, unless you are making tons of money from your distribution (and if so, you can afford to mirror the entire source code). As long as you are reasonable you should be fine.

Did you RTFA? The FSF, who is the copyright holder for much of the code distributed with MEPIS, demanded that the distributor of MEPIS comply with their license. They own the rights to the source code. They can legally sue. Only they can say whether they will sue or not, but a nastygram from them certainly seems to indicate that they might, if necessary, sue to stop you from infringing on their copyrights should you fail to do so voluntarily.

Re:Only copyright holders can sue, and they won't

[Fjornir]

The angry user cannot legally sue you since they do not own the rights to the source code.

Are you sure about that? Aren't they granted the source under the GPL? Aren't you accepting those obligations when you distribute something that's GPLed? Given that I am in no way a lawyer I don't understand what you're saying... But it seems to me that someone you distributed to could certainly take you to court and very likely win a court order that you fulfill your obligations under the license. Am I wrong?

Re:Only copyright holders can sue, and they won't

[Sancho]

The user does not own the rights to the source code, but they certainly have the rights to the source code. The original distributor is under zero obligation to give it to them--so if that site goes down, where should they get it?

Re:Only copyright holders can sue, and they won't

[Emetophobe]

If someone comes up to you and demands the source code rudely, you can politely tell them to fetch the code from the same place you got it from

Or you could send them the entire source at some insanely low speed, say 2-3k/sec via IRC. They'll get the source...eventually.

Re:Only copyright holders can sue, and they won't

[spitzak]

No you are wrong. The original poster is correct, only the copyright holder can sue you. The person you distributed to could complain to the copyright holder and try to get them to sue you, but that is about all.

Re:Only copyright holders can sue, and they won't

[Fjornir]

Can you explain why, please? Why couldn't I take the (hypothetical) person who gave me the bins to court and present them with a demand that they fulfill their portion of the license agreement? Why would a judge not grant a court order demanding they do so?

Re:Only copyright holders can sue, and they won't

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain why, please? Why couldn't I take the (hypothetical) person who gave me the bins to court and present them with a demand that they fulfill their portion of the license agreement? Why would a judge not grant a court order demanding they do so?

Because this hypothetical person hasn't entered into an agreement with you by providing the binary. So there's no basis for you to bring a suit. The agreement the person made was with the people who own the copyrights to the code.

Furthermore, that agreement, under the terms of the GPL, is the only thing that makes it possible for the person to distribute works derived from the original source code (e.g. binaries) without violating copyright. So if the person violates the GPL, then he or she can be sued for copyright violation by any of the copyright owners.

If there were no such thing as copyright, the GPL would not work. It's actually quite clever. The GPL itself is quite readable, so you can see this for yourself.

Re:Only copyright holders can sue, and they won't

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF encourages software developers using the GPL to transfer the copyright to them. For those projects that do, the FSF has a cause of action if they start receiving reports of non-compliance, and they are just big enough to actually do something about it if someone is shirking their responsibilities.

Mepis plays fast & loose with GPL

[gvc]

Warren has made his own problems. I tried Mepis in 2004 and quite liked it. I used it for more than a year and installed it on several people's machines. However, I will not use it any more.

My reasons are several, but one of the top ones is murky licensing.

No doubt somebody from the MEPIS community will loudly declare that licensing is not a problem. If this is the case, exactly how can I get the source to build myself a MEPIS distro?

There has been considerable bad blood in the MEPIS community and former community. I am not a member of any faction. I have done my share to contribute. I simply tried to get my questions answered and MEPIS and Warren came up short. His many rants -- the one cited in the story is one of many over the last three years -- further convince me that I was right to walk away.

MEPIS is because is non-standard. Warren repeatedly warns against upgrading packages from the standard Debian repositories. There is no upgrade path from one version of MEPIS to the next. There appears to be a very weak mechanism for collecting community know-how as to how to configure the system to "just work" on a particular platform.

Re:Mepis plays fast & loose with GPL

[yankpop]

The only problem with the license is that it's very hard to find it. Anything Warren wrote from scratch is released as "freely redistributable binary", or something to that effect. Which is to say, closed source. It's kind of creepy that this is so poorly documented. If there was a link from the main page at mepis.com that lead interested parties to a clear statement describing the code as proprietary, then much of the bad blood you mention would never have accumulated. And it would save those of us who still use Mepis from constantly having to clarify the issue.

yp.

Re:Mepis plays fast & loose with GPL

[vga_init]

MEPIS is because is non-standard. Warren repeatedly warns against upgrading packages from the standard Debian repositories. There is no upgrade path from one version of MEPIS to the next. There appears to be a very weak mechanism for collecting community know-how as to how to configure the system to "just work" on a particular platform.

It's things like this that convince me never to try any of the "small" oddball distros. After years of learning linux, I realized a lot of crucial things, such as "No matter where you go, it's still linux."

In the end, your best bet is always to go with projects that good tools, a large user base (or very strong support). Sometimes it's cool to hate major distributions; even I went through that "I hate Red Hat" stage. There's only so much GNU you can do, however, before you realize that all the good distro work boils down to Red Hat, Debian, and sometimes Slackware. Distros like Ubuntu and SuSE are like icing on the cake.

After messing around with distro after distro, I just end up running Fedora or Ubuntu. Some distros are better for special needs, but I'm not really a special needs kind of guy. :)

Re:Mepis plays fast & loose with GPL

[xtracto]

I completely agree with you. When I was at University (4 years ago) I used to install a different distro in my computer almost each week or every other week, I tried it a bit and then installed the next. I got amazed with Mandrake's ease of use, and with Debian's package management, I was enterntained by the several different spanish-language distros and what not, and even Corel Linux! .

At the end, I stayed with Red Hat (fedora), which, was one of the ones that I did not liked back then because it had not so many "bells and whistles", the installation was not as easy as Mandrake for example, but for a really productive environment, I have found it is the best distribution to have, because if you have any problem you know there are a hell lot of people with the same problem and someone may have solved it.

There is only another distribution I use, it is th Damn Small Linux project, I have it in an USB disk and It has been useful once or twice

Re:Mepis plays fast & loose with GPL

[gvc]

It's things like this that convince me never to try any of the "small" oddball distros.

A small distro is fine so long as it is architected as a delta on established base. Then you can keep current with the base and the worst that'll ever happen is that the distro-specific deltas have to be adapted and re-applied. If the small distro is viable, it should be able to do that much. Or figure out a way to use community support to maintain and enhance the deltas (for example, to support new hardware). Even if the distro dies, all you lose is whatever its value-add was in the first place.

MEPIS chose instead to say that if you upgrade from Debian sources you are on your own. And if you upgrade, say, from MEPIS 2004 to MEPIS 3 or from MEPIS 3 to MEPIS 6 you have to do a fresh install and all your configuration information and tweaks will be lost.

I'm not buying it.

[mindstrm]

There is no safe harbour....

If you are re-distributiong non-commercially, without modification, upstream source is fine (which makes sense)

If you are modifying anything, including doing your own custom kernel, then you must provide source. Providing the source alongside the downloads, granting equivalent access to it, satisifes your obligation under the GPL to provide source. The day you stop offering downloads, you can stop offering the source as well.

Re:I'm not buying it.

[renehollan]

If you are re-distributiong non-commercially, without modification, upstream source is fine (which makes sense)

Only if the upstream provider is willing to provide source for a resonable price to their binaries tht you redistribute non-commercially for a period of three years.

Most would-be upstream providers do not do this. Instead they make source available as long as they distribute binaries.

There is a simple technical solution to this, though:

Anyone who tries to download binaries from your site is encouraged to (a) download the source first "from your site" or explicitly decline it, on the understanding that it may cease to be available. This, IMHO, is not a GPL violation: you have offered source, and not only has the offer been declined, but the requestor has agreed to not ask again for it. The GPL merely requires that you offer (and, obviously, to be prepared to make good on your offer).

If someone excercizes your offer, you redirect their requests to your "upstream" provider (first verifying that their hashes are what you expect --- hmm, does .tar put a hash at the head of the archive?). After they've gotten source, then you send them binaries.

Re:I'm not buying it.

[renehollan]

This, IMHO, is not a GPL violation: you have offered source, and not only has the offer been declined, but the requestor has agreed to not ask again for it. The GPL merely requires that you offer (and, obviously, to be prepared to make good on your offer).

Note that this is not a transferrable offer, as it would have to be if you distributed under (c). You are, in effect, redistributing under (a), albeit by proxy.

If someone declines your offer, it does mean that they can't redistribute unless they get sources from someone other than you.

Re:I'm not buying it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone declines your offer, it does mean that they can't redistribute unless they get sources from someone other than you.

*cough*Bullshit*cough*

If I distribute under 3(a) and the guy who gets it from me doesn't take the sources he can't distribute bins under 3(b) (he doesn't have the sources and cannot make a written offer to give them out on-request for three years) and he can't distribute under 3(c) (he has no written offer to provide with the bins).

Re:I'm not buying it.

[renehollan]

What bullshit? You just made my point. Apparently I was not clear.

Re:I'm not buying it.

[mindstrm]

Re-read section 3.

The 3 year commitment only applies if you (or the upstream) chose section 3b of the GPL, to accompany your binary distribution with a written offer, valid for 3 years, to provide source for no more than the reasonable cost to you of providing it, on a media commonly used for software interchange.

If you use 3a or 3c, you have no such 3 year commitment.

Most distributions and OSS projects distribute under 3a, where they merely provide equal access to the binaries and source (which is the equivalent of distributing both on the same media)

Section 3c clearly states that you can re-distribute with no personal commitment to re-distribute yourself, as long as the binary is not modified, and the distribution is non-commercial.

Re:I'm not buying it.

[renehollan]

Re-read section 3.

The 3 year commitment only applies if you (or the upstream) chose section 3b of the GPL, to accompany your binary distribution with a written offer, valid for 3 years, to provide source for no more than the reasonable cost to you of providing it, on a media commonly used for software interchange.

If you use 3a or 3c, you have no such 3 year commitment.

From the GPL:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

If you distribute under 3c, then you must (a) point to someone who distributes under 3b and (b) have received binaries from that 3b distributer or a 3c distributer "downstream" from the 3b distributer (the 3b offer is transferrable).

So, the three year rule applies w.r.t 3c distribution -- it just applies to someone other than you. You do have to find that someone, however (and, technically, have obtained binaries from them).

My point is that you can't redistribute under 3c and refer to an "upstream" distributer distributing under 3a, because 3a does not (a) require distribution to all who request source, and (b) does not meet the three year rule. You have to be able to point to a 3b distributer.

AFAIK, because the major distros redistribute under 3a, this makes pointing to them as "upstream" distributers under 3c impossible, which is the crux of the issue at hand.

Re:I'm not buying it.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I think the gp meant, "If you only recieved executables with a source code offer, you can non-commercially re-distribute those executables, so long as you accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code."

If you distribute under 3a, the code is already there.

If you distribute under 3b, there is a 3 year obligation.

If you distribute under 3c (which means you got it from someone using 3b), then you encure no 3 year obligation, but the original 3 year obligation remains in place (for the 3b distriubtor) and the people you distributed executables to have "third party" access to source from the 3b distributor.

It would appear that if someone distributed executables on Jan 1st, 2000, and I copied and distriubted their CD on Jan 1st, 2001, then there would remain 2 years of obligation for the original distributor, and I should let the person I distribute to know they only have 2 years left of "third party" access.

Re:I'm not buying it.

[renehollan]

Yes. Parent "gets it". For someone to distribute under 3c, there has to be someone else distributing under 3b. AFAIK, most distros distribute under 3a.

Furthermore, it is my interpretation (but IANAL), that the 3c distributer had to have received the binaries from the 3b distributer, or any number of 3c intermediaries, in order to extend 3b's offer to 3c's downstreamers. IOW, you can't simply distribute binaries that you got from A, and point to B as a 3b (because, not having gotten the binaries from B, you can't extend B's offer).

As for the "three year time limit" running out, I don't know if that can happen: When someone redistributes under 3c, they have to extend the 3b distributer's offer to the recipient, "resetting the clock" to that new recipient, as it were. It's part of the 3b distributer's requirements that they permit this.

Now, that makes distribution under 3b a real pain, because one's obligation never ends. OTOH, I don't thing a contract can be made in perpetuity (and the agreement to provide sources is a contract, not a license, since it covers a future obligation, and not a present permission), so it might very well be three years after the last distribution by the 3b distributer.

But still, 3b is a real pain. 3a strikes me as much simpler. The problem arises when you want to distribute physical media, and need to go from one disk to two, as with a "disrto and mag" combo. But, 3c wouldn't even apply there since distribution is commercial. That leaves 3a or 3b. 3a is hard, for physical reasons, and 3b is hard for legal reasons.

Re:I'm not buying it.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

IANAL (but wouldn't it be fun,) but my understanding was in the 3c case you are able to make a copy of the 3b originated CD you recieved, and the person who recieves it has whatever is left of the 3 year limit imposed on the 3b distributor. I've never before heard mention of any "resetting the clock", nor do I see any way to read that into the GPL. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that the obligations on the 3b distributor are due to actions *they* take. I don't think that these actions taken by a third party should/would make any difference to that obligation.

Re:I'm not buying it.

[renehollan]

I don't think that these actions taken by a third party should/would make any difference to that obligation.

Except that the 3b distributer has to extend the same offer to "any third party".

I think that what is at issue is what, exactly, is "the same offer"? Is the three year window from the time of the first distribution to the first 3c recipient part of it, or is a comparable, new, three year window part of it? The latter is the more generous (or onerous, depending on your POV) interpretration, and, IIRC, when someone writes up the terms of a contract or a license, they are held to the interpretation most disadvantagous to them (because they had the opportunity to write the license/contract).

Re:I'm not buying it.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

IANAL, so take me with a grain of salt. Still, it seems to make sense, so here I go :-)

"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party..."

The 3b distributor gives a written offer valid for three years when a binary (-only) is shipped. Say this happens on Jan 1st of 2000. The offer is good until Dec 31st of 2002. Then the offer expires.

As a poor grad student I make a copy for you, for free, of my CD. I am distributing under 3c. Lets say we do this during Aug of 2001.

I "Accompany it with the information" I "received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code." Thus I give you a photo copy of the written offer, dated Jan 1st 2000 thru Dec 31st 2002.

Now lets say you do the same for a friend, during Oct of 2002. You also must "Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code." Notice that the information you recieved was the photo copy of the information I recieved, which you now photo copy and pass along. The "information recieved" has always been the written noticfication of the date the binary was distributed under 3b, and the fact that 3 years from that date the obligation to provide source code disappears for the 3b person. This date never changes. Likewise, the "information" doesn't change...it just gets photocopied.

Now if I'm reading this wrong, I'd like to know...but this is how I parse the GPL.

:-)

Re:I'm not buying it.

[renehollan]

"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party..."

I dunno. Perhaps you're correct.

The thing is, the 3c redistributor has to extend the same offer that he received, "valid for three years" (and the 3b redistributor has to agree to this). Interpreting it your way, the offer would not be the same, because it would "expire" sooner. IOW, is the "three years" bit part of the offer to any third party or only to the the 3b recipient?

Put another way, the question is "three years since when?"

Your interpretation is easier to imlement. But, what bothers me is that it likely goes against the grain of RMS's thinking at the time and allows binaries to lapse to a state of non-source availability. RMS has never surrendered to convenience over principle and I don't think he intended to here. In fact, IIRC, 3b is intentionally onerous in order to encourage distribution under 3a.

Good

[glwtta]

This could make life difficult for those small distros that are being maintained by one or two people in their spare time

That's a very good thing - there needs to be a lot less "small distros maintained by one or two people in their spare time". These SDMBORTPITSTs aren't helping anyone: if you want to roll your own linux for some itch you want to scratch - more power to you; but there's no need to call it a distro and pretend that you are going to maintain it for more than 2 months.

Re:Good

[JamesGecko]

Oh, yeah. Stuff like Damn Small Linux, Beatrix and (formally) Knoppix? They don't help anyone.

500 Distros?

[wardk]

Time for some natural selection

Let the situation dictate

[CyberNigma]

If they are obviously just being lazy and skimping out on the requirements (large distribution with plenty of donations to come in that could cover such things, then they need to get their heads out and start offering it up. For the small hobbyist that's doing it alone for fun on his home website he can stick it out and see what happens. Going after the little guys isn't helping the RIAA and MPAA very much in the public eye, so I doubt that it would help the FSF much either (should they pursue it). Copyright infringement is the same before the law whether its 'free' software or music and movies. Hell, they could set up torrents for their binaries (assuming they have another place to seed them from) if they have to take them down from their site because they aren't hosting the source.

Disclaimer?

[cb8100]

What ever happened to the "NewsForge is part of the OSTG, just like Slashdot" disclaimer that used to get posted on stories that linked to other OSTG sites?

Re:Disclaimer?

[ClamIAm]

FTFSummary: NewsForge (Also owned by VA)

Why go after MEPIS and give Google a pass?

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL requires for **non-commerical** unmodified redistribution (such as SimplyMEPIS download mirrors):
1) A copy of the GPL be provided (and for a distribution with glibc, a copy of the LGPL as well)
2) A list of the GPL/LGPL packages used and where the source code is available from (the source code can be provided by a previous location *IF* it is non-commerical redistribution)

GPL requires for commerical redistribution (such as can be ordered from the MEPIS store):
1) A copy of the GPL (and LGPL) be provided
2) A written offer for source code on a physical media (such as CD) that costs no more than recovering the costs of performing such redistribution (if time/materials to download and burn all the source packages is worth $50 then the cost is $50 even if the binary CD is only $15)

It seems silly for the FSF to go after MEPIS considering the on-going GPL violation that Google continues with for their Google Search Appliance at http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/

Google performs redistribution of a RedHat-like GNU/Linux distribution *WITHOUT* providing any written copy of the GPL or LGPL. There is no copy provided with the written documentation provided. And while there is a copyright/about option in the web administration piece of the appliance, it also fails to provide any copy of the GPL or LGPL. So far, I am not aware of any effort by the FSF to correct Google's actions and the group that provides support for the GSA has stated they have no intentions of changing their actions to comply with the GPL since they consider themselves to already be complying by *NOT* providing any copy of either license!

Also, EndRun Technologies has a small GNU/Linux distributions can be downloaded from:
http://www.endruntechnologies.com/download.htm

The source code is not available for download but is available on CD-ROM for a $100 fee.

Re:Why go after MEPIS and give Google a pass?

[emurphy42]

Which is weird, because they do apparently offer source.

Re:Why go after MEPIS and give Google a pass?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they do offer the source code and use that as "proof" of being compliant.

However...

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

GSA support does not claim there is any written documentation or information via the web administration interface that honors this clause. Google claims to be honoring the GPL without actually providing any details to how Clause 1 of the GPL is being followed.

Please, feel free to look through the documenation/web administration interface of any GSA customer and prove me wrong. If they no longer have the written documentation, a copy is available through the support website.

I don't find anyplace in the GPL permission to only follow one single clause (such provide the source code for download) and still violate the first clause requiring a copy of the license be provided at the time of distribution. They acknowledge the licensing terms for python but just happen to skip the GPL which covers the majority of executible code provided on the GSA. But feel free to prove me wrong.

So, if the Free Software community will give Google a pass on violating Clause 1 then why bother enforcing any the other clauses? If Google can get away with not informing their GSA customers of their rights under the GPL then does anything else the GPL has to say even really matter?

I think if it is good enough for Google to blantly blow off GPL clause 1 for YEARS (since 2002) then lets all blow off the GPL. The Free Software Foundation seems to just bully those that it feels it can get away with bullying and letting Google get away with murder. Let them try and bully me. I want the FSF to explain to a judge why for the last four years Google has gotten a get out of jail free card on GPL Clause 1 and I deserve to get RMS'ed.

Btw, you want to know why Slashdot comes down hard on Linksys/Cisco and not Google? Just take a look at what companies have contributed to OSTG. You don't bite the hand the feeds you and you don't enforce the GPL when one of your sponsors violates it.

Funny thing is that it would be so easy to just add the GPL/LGPL to the "about" page already provided on the GSA and be done with it. But I guess when your a big enough company and sponsor the right groups then you don't have to bother doing the easy requirements.

So lets join Google, the OSTG sponsor, in saying: "SCREW YOU GPL!"

Re:Why go after MEPIS and give Google a pass?

[mark-t]

2) A written offer for source code on a physical media (such as CD) that costs no more than recovering the costs of performing such redistribution (if time/materials to download and burn all the source packages is worth $50 then the cost is $50 even if the binary CD is only $15)

How, exactly, do you meter the time? If you are allowed to charge for your time, what's to stop you from charging a hundred dollars an hour or portion thereof?

Re:Why go after MEPIS and give Google a pass?

[Maximum Prophet]

Nothing. If your time is worth $100/hour (as mine is), and someone will pay you for it, charge it. You just have to only charge for the actual time you spend preparing/sending the distribution.

So, how is this different from closed source stuff? Back in the bad old days, the source to things like VMS was available for thousands of dollars, and you had to sign a non-disclosure. The person preparing the distribution didn't get paid anywhere near $1000/hour, but that's what you were charged. Under GPL, I can charge you $1000/hour for 2 hours to burn and mail you a CD with the distribution, but then, you can distribute as many copies of that as you want for your own terms.

Exception for free distribution?

[nsayer]

GPL section 3c seems to offer the solution:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: [...] c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

That is, if you're giving the stuff away, it's good enough to simply point them back to the original source you used to fetch the code - which means it's probably good enough to include a README with a URL to the project's home page.

Re:Exception for free distribution?

[DragonWriter]

That is, if you're giving the stuff away, it's good enough to simply point them back to the original source you used to fetch the code

That's true if and only if you originally received a object/executable distribution with a written offer of source code under 3(b); if you received source code under 3(a), either as part of the package with the object/executable or provided from the same source as a separate, optional downloaded, you haven't received a written offer under 3(b), and can't yourself pass on that offer under 3(c).

Re:Exception for free distribution?

[nsayer]

That's correct. But if your "distribution" consists of a little bit of customized stuff (which you provide the source for), and a pile of binary packages you fetched from somewhere else, AND if you're giving it away...

Re:Exception for free distribution?

[DragonWriter]

Then you still have to provide the full source code for everything you are distributing, changed or not, unless the upstream distributor used the option in 3(b), which almost no major Linux distro does. Now, maybe that's not the way the license should be, but its the way the license is.

Re:Exception for free distribution?

[nsayer]

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

So it would seem the major sticking point is the '3 years' thing. After all, if the place you get the binaries you're distributing has the source right along side, that would seem to comply with every other tenant of section b, no? An anonymous FTP server or an HTTP server with a zip file certainly qualifies as an offer in writing for no cost.

As for the '3 years' thing, maybe it's a case where the spirit and letter of the license clash a bit.

Re:Exception for free distribution?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually, no, I think that if the web site has both source and executables available for download, they are using 3a. You might only download the executables, but that doesn't mean you can wave a magic wand and make them "3b" rather than "3a". The fact that they distributed source with binaries means there is no written 3 year offer for you to pass on, and so you assume the 3 year burden yourself if you then redistribute binary only.

Re:Exception for free distribution?

[DragonWriter]

So it would seem the major sticking point is the '3 years' thing.

No, the sticking point is the written offer part.

3a refers to distribution of the software and the source either together, or separately from the same source and by the same method with the source as an optional component.

3b refers to the distribution of the object/executable alone along with a written offer valid for at least three years to provide the source, on demand, at no charge except for actual cost of preparing and delivering the copy.

Most distributions use one of the two possible ways of complying with 3a, not the written offer in 3b. You can't use the 3c option to pass along a written offer given under 3b unless you have received a written offer under 3b.

Most

Re:Exception for free distribution?

[nsayer]

In what way is an HTTP server serving files to the public not a "written offer?"

It's certainly an offer. The directory listing is certainly written. Not written on paper, but it consists of text. Text is "writing" and anything presented in text is "written." QED.

How did this get modded up?

[chuhwi]

In ubuntu, as in debian, there is complete source package for every binary package. Should you read the appropriate documentation, or even google, you could easily download the source package corresponding to the kernel package. Perhaps you were told to "fuck off" because you were too lazy to google before being rude?

Re:How did this get modded up?

[iotaborg]

And these snobbish attitudes are exactly the reason why linux has difficulty in desktop penetration and overall mindshare.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[geekoid]

google is not a replacement for communication, and it is pathetic to tell people to google instaed of at least offering a link.

Oh, and typicall reason why people shy away from Linux:
"Should you read the appropriate documentation, "
maybe the poster didn't know where the docs are? perhaps they where new and just need some friendly advice?

Man, you are a dick.
I imagine if some asks you for directions to the corner store you just tell them to fuck off and by a map.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[nuzak]

Quoth the OP:

> "I said Ubuntu wasn't being compliant"

He seemed to know enough to sling around baseless accusations. He deserves a good "fuck off" response.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

Considering the person was looking for the exact ubuntu kernel source and everyone on that board probably thought it was a joke, then the response is probably expected with the current climate.

However, the appropriate response would be to post a link to the relevent google search and the ubuntu wiki. Of course, what do I know.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the snobbish attitude is the best thing Linux has going for it right now.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[TheGavster]

Frequently under Linux, you will be running fine with the distribution-specific kernel build, and find that you need a specific weird driver compiled in that isn't there. Without the source the distro used, you're left spending a long time getting everything back to working from a vanilla kernel (basically redoing any tweaks that the distro needed to make things work right).

Re:How did this get modded up?

[MukiMuki]

"I imagine if some asks you for directions to the corner store you just tell them to fuck off and buy a map."

Ummm, yeah, can I quote you in my sig? That line is fuckin' GOLDEN.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[Omega Blue]

I don't get this.

Parent clearly is a non-sequitur and a troll, but gets +5 insightful?

Re:How did this get modded up?

[rdt]

you said: "And these snobbish [slashdot.org] attitudes are exactly the reason why linux has difficulty in desktop penetration and overall mindshare."
And I say: You mean as opposed to the people who say "I won't talk to you until you pay me $XXX"

Re:How did this get modded up?

[smittyoneeach]

Naw

I'm extremely mellow about people who insist on abdicating freedom through their licensing choices, but I find that the number of people willing to go through the learning curve of FOSS is sadly small.

People want arithmetic, and FOSS presents them with calculus.

Less metaphorically, they care not fig #1 about ext2 vs. Reiser4 vs. ext3 vs. LILO vs. grub...

People just want C:\ (see? colon slashed!)

People dig that stuff. And no amount of technical merit or ethical license purity will sway them.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[miro f]

well, the OP said that Ubuntu was "not being compliant". of course, we can't see exactly what they said and the exact response, but a claim that they are not being compliant has every right to be rebutted

Re:How did this get modded up?

[Anonymous Coward]

> > "I said Ubuntu wasn't being compliant"

> He seemed to know enough to sling around baseless accusations. He deserves a good "fuck off" response.

If they're distributing a binary that they won't give you the source for, then he's right, they're not being compliant.

It's right there in the GPL - you have to either provide the source with your binary, or include an offer to provide it. Of course, if Ubuntu DID include it and this guy accused them of breaking GPL anyway, THEN by all means tell him to fuck off!

Re:How did this get modded up?

[kv9]

ok, i'll bite

And these snobbish attitudes are exactly the reason why linux has difficulty in desktop penetration and overall mindshare.

first of all, i see you have a lowish uid and should know better before talking shit. second, i know that OpenBSDs `mission statement' is to provide a solid, free, secure OS -- what's the goal of Linux, handholding and making friends? i think not.

and before the RMS-squad starts gnawing on the back of my head, lets assume he wrote GNU/Linux and was not referring just at the kernel.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[jibjibjib]

Why not just use a sane distro that actually uses a normal non-hacked Linux kernel?

Re:How did this get modded up?

[s4m7]

I imagine if some asks you for directions to the corner store you just tell them to fuck off and by a map.

Naw man, the American way is to tell them to fuck off unless they want to buy a map from me.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trouble following a narrative? NemosomeN's story barely parses as coherent, much less true (asked who? where? admin? mod? sure..) If NemosomeN is smart enough to know what 'kernel source' means, he would have been smart enough to find the images in the time it took him to log into the Ubuntu forums: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/dapper/release/ source/. Had he though you would have lost the opportunity to demonstate your superiority over the 'dicks' who work so hard to give us Ubuntu for free. You sound like one of those mug, selfish pricks who expect the world to hand everything to them, no matter how otherwise trivially attained. Want a Coke with that too? Cookies maybe?

Re:How did this get modded up?

[Anonymous Coward]

hate to say, it but telling someone to go buy a fucking map doesn't hurt. If people knew how to read maps, they wouldnt' ask for directions beyond say "x street in this town" for exact address stuff. God forbid mapquest, or maps.google.com, or rand mcnally, or 411 services, or 800 other things that are free for the most part (or ask for compensation for their derivative works).

Seriously...when I learned to read a map well, and understand more than "x highway is connected to X", and understand that directions really ARE as simple as they look, I was dumbfounded as to why I was relying on things like mapquest to make up for my lack of common sense. I mean if you are trying to get from chicago to IOWA wouldn't you just follow the IOWA sign? Yes, you would. Yet people need mapquest to tell them the exact exit number for this? wow, difficult. "I'll go west, and head towards where it says for iowa."

The article poster clearly didnt RTFA though. What they are asking for in the GPL, is a good thing.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[shellbeach]

google is not a replacement for communication, and it is pathetic to tell people to google instaed of at least offering a link.

It's a bit odd to tell someone to google something that's available via apt-get. The Ubuntu kernel source package comes up clearly using synaptic and searching for "kernel" - and I should know, as it was the first package I installed when I put Ubuntu on my laptop (my laptop's ACPI needs a kernel patch for things to work correctly). The only thing remotely confusing was that the Ubuntu kernel .config wasn't supplied in the source directory - instead you have to copy it from /boot (and a note in the package info would have helpful as regards this!)

Anyway, if the OP was really treated as he says, then yes, the attitude is a problem - but considering the default reponse on any Debian-related forum is "apt-get", I suspect that that he either asked in completely the wrong place, or is mis-recalling the instructions given.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[Justin205]

Because the hacked versions often add in some useful and/or eyecandy features that you may want/need such as suspend2 (useful), bootsplash support (eyecandy), or Reiser4 support (useful), that *aren't* in the vanilla kernel yet.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[rohan972]

http://mirror.pacific.net.au/linux/ubuntu-releases /6.06/ is one of the Australian mirrors linked to from ubuntu.com/download and has the source iso's

Re:How did this get modded up?

[swarsron]

"Man, you are a dick.
I imagine if some asks you for directions to the corner store you just tell them to fuck off and by a map."

No, you are lazy.
You're asking me directions while standing 5 meter next to a big street map. So i have to walk there and look for the street just because you're to lazy to do it yourself.
I have no problem doing this for people who can't read the map (i.e. don't know what to search) but most people just don't think about their problem for one minute before asking in a forum/newsgroup.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[ajs318]

Actually there are fewer Source packages {consisting of a .tar.gz = author's tarball, a .diff = Debian/Ubuntu patches and a .dsc = Debian/Ubuntu metadata} than there are binary packages. This is because each source package builds at least two binary packages, main and -dev, and possibly a library package as well. Some programs, such as httpd, have options that are only meaningful at compile-time and hence result in there being several binary packages according to the compile-time options chosen. So from one source package foo you might build binary packages foo.deb, foo-dev.deb and libfoo1.deb. Or if bar is something with extensive compile-time options, you might build bar-common.deb, bar-threaded.deb, bar-nonthreaded.deb, bar-nonthreaded-smp.deb and bar-dev.deb from the same source package.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[popeguilty]

It's especially galling to be told to read the documentation when, in a lot of cases, the documentation sucks. I've been looking for documentation for cpufreq/cpufreqd for ages in hopes of extending my battery life under Linux, and I can't find jack shit. But I ask anywhere, and it's always "read the docs!" What docs?

Re:How did this get modded up?

[kv9]

-1, Flamebait? ORLY? lemme guess, frustrated newbies that got snubbed when asking stupid questions have mod points today? enjoy your power.

yes, i know, how very mature of me...

Re:How did this get modded up?

[eldoo77]

Exactly!

Re:How did this get modded up?

[fritsd]

Now *that's* a typical example of the "arrogant elite hacker" attitude! Well done! Bravo! :-)

Re:How did this get modded up?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's debian -- it's almost impossible to NOT include the source by way of apt-get --source, or whatever that command is. debs are built from those source debs after all.

FSF may have forgotten though that not every free software package out there is GPL'd, and that the GPL doesn't cover a distribution that aggregates GPL packages. So they might well deserve a good fuck-off response too (though it's pretty likely they looked at GNU packages like gcc).

Re:How did this get modded up?

[HiThere]

Which distros are those (i.e., which distros use a default kernel)? Not Red Hat. Not Ubuntu. Not SuSE. Caldera? (I haven't checked...and they're out of the business anyway.) Not Mandrake. Not Debian. Gentoo? I think not.

Possibly Slackware. I expect Linux From Scratch uses a standard kernel. I doubt that Peanut Linux does.

MOST distros hack the kernel. They add something, or take something away. Not usually anything difficult (though it may be major).

(Warning: This information is a few years old, back when I was looking at such things and worrying about them, and is directly related to 2.4, as 2.6 wasn't yet out. Still, I doubt that it's changed much.)

Also, Debian has several different kernel choices...and it's not entirely "what's your processor". Now as to how major those changes are... I really don't know.

All that said, BOTH sides have valid points here. BOTH. Yes, it's a hassel. Yes, they really need to do it. (But, as has been pointed out, they don't need them on an ftp server. Distribution via DVD with "handling charges" is perfectly legit. And you don't have to accept credit cards. And you can wait for the check to clear.)

OTOH, you DO need to ensure that you have decent backups. And CDs don't last forever...or even as long as mag tape used to. The shiney patches spontaneously revert over time, and NOBODY burns pits any longer. (The metalic foil in a glass sandwich CDs probably WERE good essentially forever...but we don't use those anymore.)

Re:How did this get modded up?

[dylan_-]

You don't say what distro you're using, but try here

Re:How did this get modded up?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Seriously, if you're having trouble getting free ad-hoc volunteer support (which you are not by any means entitled to), hire a consultant to help you. I'm sure if you went to Scriptlance or some similar site, you could get a decent rate.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[popeguilty]

I'd settle for fully-documented software, which ought to be considered a part of software and not external to it.

Re:How did this get modded up?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Agreed, but it won't happen unless:

1. someone volunteers to write it; or
2. someone pays someone else to write it

If you make demands of volunteers, as if you're entitled to anything, you usually deserve the reaction you get. Exceptions are cases where you are actually entitled to something (e.g. GPL compliance).

Re:Big deal

[cyclop]

The obvious problem being that a lot of ISPs these days (especially UK-based ISPs) are blocking or severely throttling torrent traffic. It makes it rather slow to grab the latest Fedora ISOs...

Well, that's not distributor fault, and therefore the distributor should still be GPL compliant (unless the torrent becomes completely un-downloadable). But in this case, hey, put it on a couple of DVD's (just to have backups) and write on the homepage "if you want source, send me $2+stamps and I'll send you the source code DVD".

GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[Pfhorrest]

I'm a hobbyist mod-maker for the ~10yo FPS game Marathon, the engine for which is now GPL'd, spawning the Aleph One project. I've got a near-total conversion mod in progress right now (don't worry about the "near" part, the original game content is also free game for such purposes now), and for the ease of my potential players, I'd really like to include the application program, renamed and with a custom icon (as has been traditional practice for Marathon mod-makers of the pre-Aleph days), in my download. Since Marathon was originally a Mac game, Aleph One requires no "installation" (at least on Mac and Windows); you just download a .zip of the program, put it in a folder with your choice of game files, and play. So including the app with my mod would mean players just download and go, no other downloads or installation necessary. (And yes, players of other Marathon mods do actually get confused by the three-step process of downloading the game, downloading the engine, and putting the two together).

However, I found out not long ago that I can't do that without distributing all the source, including that for my modifications. Nevermind how to distribute what little I modified in "source"; I renamed the files in the Finder and copied some icon graphics into the app package, what's the source to that? Nevermind that I couldn't code my way out of "hello world"; even if I wanted to ship a completely unmodified binary, I'm not even sure how to get the source to it, much less how to distribute it properly.

I'm basically a user of this software, but a developer of art content that is symbiotic with it. A game engine is useless without game content and vice versa; the two are really things that ought to be packaged together. But developers of game content, especially amateurs like me, are quite often not developers of software. They just use the software to present their content.

I think the GPL causes significant problems in cases like these. Another example I could imagine would be an open-source installer program or self-extracting archive maker (not that many things use these anymore, probably for this very reason): if you want to use that installer to ship your stuff, must you also distribute the source to the installer? Even if what you're shipping has nothing to do with the installer, other than that it installs whatever it is you're shipping? Must you ship an "installer package" and make people download the installer separately if they don't already have it? So, self-extracting archives are not feasible under the GPL, since everyone who used one would have to distribute the source to the archive-maker as well?

I'm sure this will probably get a lot of "that's what the license says, if you don't like it don't use it" responses, but I'm just trying to point out that the GPL as it stands is not appropriate for the distribution of all types of applications (like game engines or self-installer programs), even when it is otherwise appropriate for the projects that develop those programs, and thus I think the GPL could use some modifications to allow for such reasonable uses.

The GPL seems to assume that everyone is, or at least ought to be, a software developer and/or distributor. But I think I've shown that there are some cases where software is only incidentally distributed by people who have and want nothing to do with the development or distribution of software, but rather, things that use that software. An apt analogy might be if some bottle-maker distributed instructions on how to make such bottles (i.e. chemical ingredients and such) with every bottle, and insisted that anyone who make and sell copies of those bottles also include those instructions. Maybe you've got an ingenious bottle plastic formula and want it open to the world and not patented or exploited by Coca-Cola for profit; that's fine and dandy. But does that mean I can't serve

Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[cyclop]

So including the app with my mod would mean players just download and go, no other downloads or installation necessary.

Fine. You can go along with it.

I can't do that without distributing all the source, including that for my modifications. Nevermind how to distribute what little I modified in "source"; I renamed the files in the Finder and copied some icon graphics into the app package, what's the source to that? Nevermind that I couldn't code my way out of "hello world"; even if I wanted to ship a completely unmodified binary, I'm not even sure how to get the source to it, much less how to distribute it properly.

You don't need to know how to program to redistribute the source. Just take the source, rename the files you renamed, copy the files you copied, zip it all and link it on your home page. You don't have to give it to everyone also downloades your binary, you just have to keepi it there, "just in case".

Must you ship an "installer package" and make people download the installer separately if they don't already have it? So, self-extracting archives are not feasible under the GPL, since everyone who used one would have to distribute the source to the archive-maker as well?

You don't get it. You don't need to give people an installer-source package EVERY time they take the self-installer. It's enough you put on your program webpage a link saying "This program uses OpeenSoorceSelfInstallaz 1.2.3-rc1, you can grab the source of this installer right here". Maybe nobody will download it, who cares, what's important is that it's there.

the GPL as it stands is not appropriate for the distribution of all types of applications (like game engines or self-installer programs), even when it is otherwise appropriate for the projects that develop those programs, and thus I think the GPL could use some modifications to allow for such reasonable uses.

Perhaps (perhaps) the GPL is not the right license for that program. Perhaps the developers of your game engine could add an exception to the license about cases like yours, if you feel it's really important. There's no reason the GPL should take care of ALL possible cases: unusual cases can licence a program with GPL+exceptions instead of pure GPL, and they actually do.

But does that mean I can't serve my favorite home-made fruit punch mix to company at a party or other event without photocopying the bottle-making instructions and distributing them with the drinks? I don't care know or care what the bottles are made out of, I just need something to serve my fruit punch in.

Again, you don't get it. It's enough to have copies of the instructions somewhere in the place you do the party, if someone wants to have them, no to give it to everyone.

Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[guabah]

You don't have to release the game content under the GPL, only the software code.

Note that by game content I mean models, skins, maps, etc.

Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[NichG]

The problem with calling for alternate licenses is that the GPL's nature is to spread to other code, even if the thing it spreads to is a program that would be more appropriately licensed some other way. Whats being pointed out here is not 'I should be able to do what I want!' but more 'the way the GPL is designed shows that the designers wanted it to eventually cover everything, but look, its also inappropriate for some things and thus there is a contradiction'. There are some attempts to address this, such as the LGPL, but in general I expect that we're going to see a lot of unintended consequences crop up as GPL becomes increasingly common.

It would be sort of funny in a sad way if a ton of code ended up being reimplemented in a cleanroom setting like is done with reverse engineering so that there'd be a safe-for-appA copy and a safe-for-appB copy. I could see a lot of wasted effort coming out of this sort of thing. Really though when it comes down to it I doubt that any single license will satisfy everyone, so it's probably inevitable.

Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[Pfhorrest]

Releasing the game content under GPL isn't my concern. I'm giving that away nearly public domain anyway.

My problem is with having to host the source code for a project that I'm only really a user of. I make content for use in this program, content without which the program is useless (and a program without which my content is useless), and which, if everything were unencumbered by licences, would rightly be bundled together with a copy of the program. How many commercial or even freeware games do you find that require you to first get a separate game engine from somewhere else? Not many; since game and content are useless without each other, they're pretty much always bundled. But the GPL puts an annoying burden on people who aren't developing software at all but want to include the needed software with their projects.

For a hobbyist like me, that could be quite annoying. I suppose I could host a copy of the source on my site, but then, I want to put the file up on the common Marathon-mod sites or other such sites too. Do I have to put copies of the application source on those sites as well? What if they don't have a category for "game engine source"? Then it's back to bundling the source files with the game, which is (as per my analogy) like handing instructions on the chemical composition of the plastic bottles I'm using to everyone I serve my fruit punch too. It's a hassle to me and the people I want to give things to. I'm not making any modifications to the code at all, I haven't even downloaded it, I just downloaded binaries so I could run the content I made. The original project is still there, with the code and the binaries where I got them from. It seems like in a case like this there should be some leeway for these such uses, and it's a problem with the GPL that there isn't.

And further, even if I were just to include a note with the project saying "I will post you a copy of the source on CD if you want it", how stringent must I be over here about making absolutely sure that I've got the source still backed up somewhere? If my HD dies and I don't have backups (which it almost did just recently... starting to keep some backups now), must I then stop all distribution of the project everywhere that it's online? Or since I've already put it up on a bunch of other people's websites (with this note), is that then in their hands? What if I could access the site through some web interface and remove the files, must I then do that? And if not, must I contact the site owners and tell THEM to stop distribution? Could they even have distributed it in the first place without first taking me up on my offer to send them a copy of the source? So I couldn't even upload it to such sites unless it was included in the same package, or the site agreed to host a copy of it themselves?

Wasn't the whole point of the GPL supposed to be freedom? This seems awfully restrictive to me.

Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[lahvak]

You don't actually have any problem here.

I suppose I could host a copy of the source on my site, but then, I want to put the file up on the common Marathon-mod sites or other such sites too. Do I have to put copies of the application source on those sites as well?

No.

And further, even if I were just to include a note with the project saying "I will post you a copy of the source on CD if you want it", how stringent must I be over here about making absolutely sure that I've got the source still backed up somewhere? If my HD dies and I don't have backups (which it almost did just recently... starting to keep some backups now), must I then stop all distribution of the project everywhere that it's online?

Ehm, since it is a GPLed game, in a case like this you can always get another copy of the source code from the original author.

Could they even have distributed it in the first place without first taking me up on my offer to send them a copy of the source? So I couldn't even upload it to such sites unless it was included in the same package, or the site agreed to host a copy of it themselves?

They can distribute the binaries without having the source because they do not modify the software in any way.

Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[Pfhorrest]

No (I don't have to put copies of the application source on the common Marathon-mod sites as well).

Why not? How is that different from putting it up on my own web space or distributing it on a CD? (Whereas in both those cases I'm told I do have to include the source or at least a promise to share it upon request).

Ehm, since it is a GPLed game, in a case like this you can always get another copy of the source code from the original author.

And what if they're unavailable now? Or what if they go offline before I ask them for a copy of the source... am I now forbidden from distributing what I've got? Are they now in trouble for distributing a binary without the code being available?

They can distribute the binaries without having the source because they do not modify the software in any way.

That's what I'm doing as well. I *couldn't* modify it if wanted too. I haven't even seen the source. I don't know where to get it beyond "from SourceForge" somehow. I just downloaded the binary and put it, unmodified, in a folder with my stuff. (I'd like to rename that binary file and paste a custom icon on it, but I don't have to). I'm not compiling anything on my own system (hence why I'm not sure how I would "include the source to my changes" if I had renamed it and pasted a custom icon). So why must I be responsible for passing on code I've never seen and don't care to see, any more than the sites that host my files would be? (Though from other people's responses, it would seem that you're incorrect that they're not responsible, anyway).

Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[marcosdumay]

No (I don't have to put copies of the application source on the common Marathon-mod sites as well).

Why not?

Because the GPL doesn't say that you must distribute the source with every coppy. It just says that you must make it available. Putting a notice on your program that tell where you can download the source from is ok (it must be from some place that you control if you make commercial use of the software).

And what if [I lost the source and] they're unavailable now? Or what if they go offline before I ask them for a copy of the source... am I now forbidden from distributing what I've got? Are they now in trouble for distributing a binary without the code being available?

Well, if you lost the source, and can't get it again, you can't distribute. All the code that you distributed without the source for the last 3 years is also ilegal, althougt it is hard that you get in trouble for that.

Bit if the program you are using is available at SourceForge, like you said, you shouldn't worry about it going away. It will stay published, every version of it will.

I couldn't* modify it if wanted too. I haven't even seen the source. I don't know where to get it beyond "from SourceForge" somehow. I just downloaded the binary and put it, unmodified, in a folder with my stuff. ... So why must I be responsible for passing on code I've never seen and don't care to see, any more than the sites that host my files would be?

Well, "from SourceForge" is some quite apropriate description of how to get the source if they gave you the link to their project. You don't need to do something better on your project (see the first question). You can't really claim that the source is not available to you, because it is.

Now, if you are selling their program bundled with your... you are selling their program. So you are responsible for it. If you are not commercialy redistributing their program, you don't need to redistribute the source, just point to their repository.

By the way, IANAL.

Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[Pfhorrest]

Because the GPL doesn't say that you must distribute the source with every coppy. It just says that you must make it available. Putting a notice on your program that tell where you can download the source from is ok (it must be from some place that you control if you make commercial use of the software).

Alright, that makes sense. Same thing if I allow its inclusion in a CD somewhere... so long as some link says "download here", and "here" is a server I control, it's fine? New question then... what exactly is "control"? I've got FTP access to a web space that a friend is kind enough to grant me, and that's what I use for hosting this project's website. If he decides to be a dick and pull that from me, am I now violating the GPL?

Well, if you lost the source, and can't get it again, you can't distribute. All the code that you distributed without the source for the last 3 years is also ilegal, althougt it is hard that you get in trouble for that.

I'm not actually, pragmatically concerned about getting in trouble for anything. All the developers of this project are also friends of mine, as the Marathon community is very small and tightly knit (although the original source was contributed by the original authors of Marathon, Bungie, who are now owned my Microsoft... so hey, Microsoft does have a GPL'd product out there).

I'm just bothered academically that it is possible to get into legal trouble for something like that happening. It's not likely to affect me so I'm not really worried about it, but that I (or anyone) could, hypothetically, technically be liable for events like that is bothersome.

Well, "from SourceForge" is some quite apropriate description of how to get the source if they gave you the link to their project. You don't need to do something better on your project (see the first question). You can't really claim that the source is not available to you, because it is.

I'm not claiming that the source isn't available to me or that I would be technically unable to do anything with it. Just that, if I were to have it, I wouldn't know what to do with it - I wouldn't even know how to compile the program, I'm not even sure if I have the tools to do so on my machine - so I haven't even bothered to look up where exactly to get the code from. I'm not at all interested in the code, I haven't looked at the code, I haven't compiled binaries from the code, and I certainly haven't modified the code. I downloaded a binary of the program and I use it, unmodified (though I would like to rename the binary file and put custom icons on it for aesthetics sake), to run content that I'm giving away for free.

I don't want to be responsible for having to obtain a copy of the source and keep it around in case someone else that I'm giving free stuff to wants it. It seems reasonable that I should be able to say "I got this straight from here" (or rather, just keep the documentation that says "this came from here" with it), and leave it at that. If the GPL doesn't allow that, I see that as a fault. Not that there's anything I or even the current maintainers can do about that though, without getting all the contributors (including Bungie, who I hear are very busy with some Halo game or something) to relicense their code with such an exception.

Now, if you are selling their program bundled with your... you are selling their program. So you are responsible for it. If you are not commercialy redistributing their program, you don't need to redistribute the source, just point to their repository.

I'm not selling it. I'd be giving it away, packaged in the same zip file as other stuff of my own that I'm also giving away. There's not even ads on the site (Bungie.org is completely ad-free, funded entirely by our gracious host Claude, just because he's a die-hard old-school Bungie fan who happens to run a web design and hosting company). 100% not-for-profit art for the art's sake.

So given that that's the case, you think it's OK for me to distribute the u

Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[marcosdumay]

AS I said, IANAL. But the GPL is very clear on that one. At the ways you can be compilant there is:

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

So, if it is noncomercial, you must only need to give people the intructions you received to download the code (subsection b is an offer to get the code or someplace to download it, opposed from subsection a that is to give it with the binaries). Most of people here are talking about commercial distribution, so that section doesn't apply to them.

About the other stuf... Well, I don't know exactly what does it means that the server is under your control (in fact the wording at GPL is not this, this is my interpretation), but I guess that it means that the owner agrees to let you use it. And if your friend stopped letting you use his server, you'd be breaking the GPL. That is not so bad, you can still use another server, or send the code by mail, or any other way you can. If you don't stop distributing the source, you'd be compilant.

And losing documents can create a huge variety of problems. There is a variety of documents that you must keep anyway (like taxes recipes), even without doing any comercial transaction. You shouldn't worry that much about abandoned GPLed code, that would probably never let you into court. And if your code is free, you could get it from your clients also.

Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content

[Ben Urban]

I will respond to your points individually:

* Application bundles (note that this is specific to Mac OS X):

Only the binaries themselves (such as the ones in Contents/MacOS) have any useful application of the GPL. The rest of the bundle is meant to be replaceable (that's what bundles and resource forks are for). Thus, the binary itself has not been modified, and the resources are merely packaged together with it.

* Installers and SEA builders:

There are at least four options that I can see that are somewhat practical for someone writing such a program:
* Write the program in an interpreted language that needs no compilation (not always possible)
* Cause the program to generate its own source code in response to the user's request (increases the size of the binary)
* License the program under the GPL with a special exception for use of the unmodified program (as PyInstaller http://pyinstaller.hpcf.upr.edu/cgi-bin/trac.cgi does)
* License the program under some other license

P.S. This is all IMHO; It's been awhile since I've read the GPL in full, so I might not fully understand the legal issues here; IANAL; etc.

Overblown

[Todd Knarr]

The concerns the article expresses are valid but a bit overblown. Yes, distros have to offer source code. Yes, that means for all packages even if you only modify a few. The FSF has a point, that's the only way to insure the source for your distro is available if the upstream moves to newer versions that aren't compatible with your stuff. But there's several ways to handle this without much trouble:

1. Offer source directly with the binaries. Including the source on CDs/DVDs along with binaries merely requires more discs (which you should charge for if you offer physical media). Including source packages on the server alongside the binary packages, by the FSF's own statements, satisfies your obligation under the GPL. If people don't download the source at the time, you've still satisfied your obligation to make it available. Yes it'll cost some server space and bandwidth, but your binaries are already using a bunch of that and you've handled it.
2. Distribute only your modified packages and provide source for them. Direct people to the appropriate distribution's site for the unmodified packages. Or host ISOs of the base distribution in unmodified form (assuming you qualify for the "non-commercial" label and can take advantage of the pass-along option).

Frankly, were I doing a Linux distribution, I'd opt for the first course. It's got the fewest issues down the road, and it follows the lead of the major distros so I'm unlikely to run into unexpected trouble.

Yet another example

[nurb432]

Of why the BSD license is 'more' free, and much safer

Re:Yet another example

[cyclop]

Sorry if I bite the flamebait, but... so I must wait for my code -and therefore, my work- to be reused and sold by money by commercial software houses without any benefit to the community, just because I'm too lazy to tar up some source code?

No thanks.

Re:Yet another example

[mi]

Sorry if I bite the flamebait, but... so I must wait for my code -and therefore, my work- to be reused and sold by money by commercial software houses without any benefit to the community, just because I'm too lazy to tar up some source code?

How is the benefit to the "community" (whatever that is) reduced by someone packaging and selling your work on their own? Your source is still just as available...

I can see, how this could increase the benefits — especially, when you consider this reseller to be part of the "community", but even if you do not, being able to buy your work from someone may be of benefit to some of the users.

But how does anyone suffer from the legality of reselling your work, if you wanted to give it away for free anyway?

Re:Yet another example

[Shrithe]

The argument here is the same that the MPAA/RIAA uses against filesharing. The /. counter is that a large number of those were never going to be sales in the first place. It's the same thing here. A given company might not contribute back, but they wouldn't have used it at all uner the GPL. It's therefore no loss to the community either way. Other companies might, and several do contribute back under BSD licenses, just like many file sharers do go out and buy the things they downloaded. Granted, the issue is more complicated, on both versions of this issue, but it's the same basic argument here.

Re:Yet another example

[cyclop]

Huh? I didnt' talk about a loss. I did talk of no added benefit.

I like the GPL (it is not perfect and I'm not always along the radicalism of RMS, but I like it in general) because it forces people just to play fair. You build upon my work? Great, but please give back your changes.

What the community can lose could be, for example, enhancements, bugfixes etc., so in a sense there is a loss.

Re:Yet another example

[mi]

Huh? I didnt' talk about a loss. I did talk of no added benefit.

You did. Implicitly. And now you are explicitly confirming my impression:

What the community can lose could be, for example, enhancements, bugfixes etc., so in a sense there is a loss.

Well, if this is a "loss", than RIAA, MPAA, and the software companies are right counting each pirated copy of their wares as a lost sale. See, what I mean?

In fact, that big ugly corporation, that's out to steal your code, as soon as you put BSD license on it (and sell it to a heartless penguin-killing war-profiteer, of course), would not bother with the GPL. Hence there'd be no "enhancements, bugfixes etc." forthcoming from them one way or the other...

Solution=OpenSolaris

[maitas]

As RMS stated about Bitkeeper, if you trade fredom for conviniance, sooner or later you will loose. GPL takes your freedom away (forces you to do things you might not want to do), CDDL gives it back to you.

what did you distribute?

[Anonymous Coward]

From your comment it seems you are distributing glossaries not Pilot-DB. If so, I don't understand why the need to make Pilot-DB sources available. Maybe I misunderstood?

Re:what did you distribute?

[IANAAC]

From your comment it seems you are distributing glossaries not Pilot-DB. If so, I don't understand why the need to make Pilot-DB sources available. Maybe I misunderstood?

Actually, I also provide the DB engine, the help files and a couple of other plugins to the DB engine, so yeah, I do need to make them available. I didn't mention that.

And I do make them available. But my point really was that nobody ever asks for any of the source code, possibly because they know they can get it from the original source. It's not what I'd call high traffic - maybe 50 downloads a day - but I always thought it odd that noon ever asked for the source. Ever.

Re:what did you distribute?

[penix1]

It shouldn't be odd...They ARE requesting the source if "50 a month" are downloading it. Don't believe me? Take the link off and watch you inbox fill with requests...

B.

Re:what did you distribute?

[IANAAC]

They ARE requesting the source if "50 a month" are downloading it. Don't believe me? Take the link off and watch you inbox fill with requests...

The link is a request for the source, not a direct download. I've never gotten a request.

I wonder what reasonable is?

[EQ]

Not a troll, nor flamebait - just "hacking" the 'reasonable' clause and cost in the GPL.

Hypothetical:

Say I make (ast an hourly rate of my annual salary) $50 an hour. Not unresaonable for a consultant.

I am distributing a baby distro and I do the source via DVD and postal request since I cannot afford a lot of bandwidth.

Figure it takes me 20 minutes to process the request, type up the label, grab the latest from my repository and DL the rest fromthe upstream, burn a DVD, and put it in a protective mailer package. And other 20 to go to the post office and 20 to come back (assume I'm in a rural area outside the suburbs). So thats and our of my time. Add in that this is essentially overtime in addition to my real job, so I bill it at time and a half. Thats $75 baseline in cost.

Add in the postage ($8 or whatever the USPS "Priority Mail" rate is), the mileage and gas on the car to go to the post office, the CD cost (including mileage on the car and gas and time to go buy them, plus wear and tear amortization on my CD burner), cost of the bandwidth, etc.

So all in all:

"Yes, you can have the whole source tree from my upstream and the 2K of diffs I have added - the reasonable cost for this source is $94.37 per CD"

Is that the right answer?

Every penny of it is documented and accounted for. Every bit of it is involved with the cost in materiels and time that it takes to prepare and ship the source. My software is free, my time is not. If you think otherwise, go ahead and put yourself down as a slave who will work for free at the demands of people that use the software you donated - is that the intend of the GPL, to enslave authors to the whims of the recipients of their gifts?

Again: Not a troll, nor flamebait - just "hacking" the 'reasonable cost' clause in the GPL.

Who decides what is reasonable?

Does the GPL give someone the right to dictate to the person releasing the software what they can and cannot do with their time? Think about it.

If not, then how do you overcome the situation above, where the GPL seems to imply that you have to release the whole of the code, including upstreams, not just your diffs, especially where releasing the whole of the upstream is cumbersome or onerous - and the response ($94.37 per DVD) is likewise.

Personally, I never looked at it this way before - the only thing I've released as open source (long ago) has been under the BSD license just to avoid the entanglements the GPL requires. And that only to be able to avoid warranty that Public Domain doenst expressly mention.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[ebrandsberg]

Sounds reasonable to me. Include a printed invoice (bill at say $.20 for the paper) that details this, and you are covered. If you get too many, state it will be 2-4 weeks for deliver, and make a bunch at once, saving costs, and pass it on. Reasonable means just that--is it reasonable for someone maintaining a baby distro to charge more for the labor of a physical copy? Yes. Is it reasonable for Redhat to charge the same amount? No, simply due to volume.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[EQ]

True - it doesn't cost Redhat nearly the money to create and ship a CD as it would that hypotheitical consultant. They dont use a US$50/hour consultant to do mailroom work - they use large batch manufacturing and bulk rate shipping and a local highschool intern/mailclerk at US$7 an hour. So maybe $2 per CD is reasonable for them.

Differences in scale between artisan and mass production are pretty will illustrated. Thanks for your thoughts!

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Tony Hoyle]

$50/hour is really cheap.

I would start at $100 and some of the commercial jobs I've done have been more like $500/hour.

If they want to start making me bundle up endire debian distros because I happened to burn a copy for a friend then fine... but I charge by the day.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[EQ]

I left it at $50 because I didn't want to trigger an argument over the amount being outrageous - some of our younger ./'ers werestill in middle school when the big money was still around. I was making $1600/day for day-to-day contracts (T&M) or 1000/day with a minimum buy of a 10 day block; thats the rate, expenses were additional of course (plane tickets, hotel, food, taxi, etc). That was back in the dot-com days, and again in 2002 as a partner in a 2 man company (with a shitload of credit card debt in between and a frighteningly long period of unemployment, in excess of a year). But now I'm a salaryman, part of a very large stable company since they bought out both of us and the rights to our product in late 2002. Security related, so outsourcing is not a factor. Enough of the e-peen showoff from me.

I just found it interesting that somone could concievably charge a fairly large amount that would be difficult for the "hobby" coder to afford for source distribitution - and the fundmantal tacit assumption that the GPL places the programmer at the disposal of the user, potentially to the detriment of the programmer! Thats an angle I've never thought o before.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[guabah]

In the GPLv3 draft I read somewhere that it up to 10x the cost of producing the code package is a fair price point so it would be like $943.7

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regrettably, I find your cost analysis unreasonable.

$50/hr is unreasonably low. When I consulted, I charged $60 and that was some time ago. Of course, you said you're rural area, so good congratulations getting $50/hr.

Stop double-billing. You're not consulting now, you're administering a GPL distribution. 20 minutes to process a source request? Come on. Maybe 5 minutes to type/write the address label, assuming no SASE. What else is there to process? Do the ISO burn while you do the envelope. Need to build the ISO from CVS? Do that during dinner. Car expenses and travel time to the Post Office? Put it in the nearest mailbox while about your paying business-done. $5 at a rate of $60/hr. Maybe add $1 for the CD and postage. Get it out within two weeks or four if you're on vacation and who could complain?

By adjusting the materials rate to cover the CD, packaging, and postage appropriately, and by billing at the rate at which you are accustomed, you are making money servicing source requests at your preferred rate and more or less at a time of your partial choosing.

Not every commercial action is necessarily profitable. For-profit businesses occasionally lose money on a job.

Nobody is enslaving you. You offered source at a reasonable cost upon request when you chose to distribute software under the GPL. It is a gift that can require additional giving, but if you find this giving onerous why distribute under the GPL?

Presumably you found value in some GPL software, including but not limited to this software. Your analysis doesn't consider the benefits you have received in advance of making your gift.

Of course, the point is probably largely moot. When has anyone ever said they were actually overwhelmed by servicing source requests associated with a GPL distribution?

Priority mail should be at the requester's option and complete expense and only if possible with your schedule.

I don't take your comment as flamebait, and I hope this isn't taken as a flame but as another view of your cost analysis.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Fjornir]

Is that the right answer?

Yes, it is... I think. You low-balled a whole bunch of things, and ignored a bunch more... Three years offsite backup is definately within the "cost of physically performing source distribution" mentioned in the GPL. Same with the costs of maintaining the duplication station, the sq footage of office space the dupe station takes, the printer for the labels, insurance on the vehicle which is driving the media to the PO, ...

If you're a business and have unemployment insurance to pay be sure to factor that in.

The fact is that I wouldn't be surprised if Linux kernel sources paid for in this manner topped $2,000 or even more. That they're available for a no-cost download is awesome, but not something you need to straightjacket yourself into.

If you've got costs for distribution then bill them honestly, no one will think less of you for it. Or if they do, fuck 'em.

Hell, shipping full computers is certainly "...a medium customarily used for software interchange...." and I could easily point out a dozen companies who do so frequently. If you wanted to you could use that route and bill for the components, your time for buying the components, pricing the components, assembling them into a computer, installing an OS on the computer, copying the sources onto the computer, and then mailing the final box.

But if you're not a lawyer make sure you have a decent one if you go this kind of route. Make sure you're in full compliance with all of your licensing obligations. And then bill for the lawyer too.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[wrook]

I suspect the answer to your question would be determined in roughly this fashion:

1. You charge $X for redistributing the source
2. Your customer thinks it's unreasonable and they make a stink
3. The holder of the copyright of the code notices (or is contacted) and they also agree it is unreasonable
4. The holder of the copyright contacts you and suggests that you should lower your price otherwise you will be in violation of the license
5. You hold steadfast to your price
6. The holder of the copyright terminates your right to distribute the software
7. You ignore this and continue to distribute the software
8. The holder of the copyright sues you
9. The judge asks you under what authority you were distributing the software
10. You have a choice of accepting the GPL or admitting that you don't have any authority to distribute the software. Since you actually have no choice, you say the GPL.
11. The judge determines whether or not the price is "reasonable". But I suspect that he/she would lean heavily in favour of the copyright holder's definition unless it were completely bonkers.

So, it's a long road to get to this point and quite likely you would resolve the situation before it ever got to the courts. And it would require several conversations with the copyright holder before it broke down that badly.

This is what makes the GPL so good.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Eil]

Say I make (ast an hourly rate of my annual salary) $50 an hour. Not unresaonable for a consultant.

I am distributing a baby distro and I do the source via DVD and postal request since I cannot afford a lot of bandwidth.

Sir, if you're making $50 an hour, you certainly can afford the bandwidth.

"Yes, you can have the whole source tree from my upstream and the 2K of diffs I have added - the reasonable cost for this source is $94.37 per CD"

Is that the right answer?

Maybe choose instead to bother with it in the evening or on the weekend when your time isn't so costly? If one is not prepared to fulfill his obligations under the GPL, one should not license his code under the GPL.

I personally license most of my stuff under the BSD license or put it into the public domain for this reason. For my crappy little substandard projects, the GPL is way overkill. Nobody's going to rip them off and if they do, I hardly care. If I ever wanted to use the GPL, it would only be for code written in an "interpreted" language like Python where the executable and the source code are the same thing.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on. Wish I had mod points..

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[noidentity]

"Yes, you can have the whole source tree from my upstream and the 2K of diffs I have added - the reasonable cost for this source is $94.37 per CD"

Is that the right answer?

I like your post and reasoning. My solution is that if many people want the source, they work together to cover your cost and arrange their own server to keep it on. Perhaps they can work with you on setting up an automated system to upload a single copy to their server (paying you for your time of course).

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good way to make a little extra poclet money. Make a minimally-modified "vanity" distro of (GNU/)Linux and advertise it on your website. Wait for the FSF to come knocking. Then charge $100 for the source.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore the "cost" you state: this is not the cost of doing the work, but the opportunity cost. Even forgetting that, 90$ for a CD ofsource code isn't reasonable in any case.

*cost* is the cost of a CD, postage, packing. You can add a couple of dollars "for your trouble". $10 isn't unreasonable.

Remember, if you made the CD, you will have the source all ready. If you are offering support for pay, you have archives set and ready (otherwise you cannot support).

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were reading the comment AND the articles, you would have read a recent Richard Stallman interview, in which he expressed his views on copyright, and he was very very clear (as usual). For him, copyright is very important, and is the foundation on top of which the GPL and GNU software is built.

The *BSD crowd would agree on the copyright should not exists. But not the GNU folks.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the most insane Slashdot articles I've read in a long time. This type of misunderstanding was common 10 years ago when the GPL was relatively new... what happened? Has everyone lost their memory or something? I really don't understand what the problem is? Most people got past this years ago by supplying the binaries and source together.

When I earn money, I have to pay tax. I can't make the tax department, my customers, or my suppliers pay my tax, I have to. It's just the way it is and is protected by the law. If taxation laws change, I still have to pay tax.

Some pointers:

1. If you don't understand the GPL, don't distrubute GPL software.

2. If you plan to distrubute or develop GNU software, download the binaries and the source together. Doing it any other way may actually be illegal. For example, the latest source code will most likely be different from the source code you used, and as such, is not the actual source code to the binary.

3. Always distrubute the source with the binaries at the time you are distributing the binaries. If you are distributing on media such as CD/DVD, the customer will already have the source on the CD/DVD. If the customer is downloading the binaries, they can get the source from where the binaries are.

Also while we are discussing the GPL I may as well share my theory on why LT doesn't think the GPL3 is necessary: he has never worked for someone like Watcom. DRM isn't some tangiable thing... it's completely made up by the minds of people... and as such, is suseptable to opinion and perspective. I believe the anti-DRM additives to the GPL are to protect GNU from a Watcom/DirectX type of situation.

Example: Some political figure head pays a statistics firm to do a study on DVD piracy and the study shows that Linux is being used to copy DVDs. This study is then used to force hardware manufacturers to use encryption and other techniques to ensure the hardware doesn't work with Linux. Then the customer can't use Linux on their new hardware and the entire GNU dies a slow and agonizing death.

To me the GPL3 reads as "if DRM is anti-GNU then GNU is anti-DRM".

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[mlk]

I asked the same about a year ago (I have a small GPL project, the source is in the SF.net CSV, but I don't provide zips).
I also came to about the same amount.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[EQ]

"Ignore the "cost" you state: this is not the cost of doing the work, but the opportunity cost."

Your words sound as if they were spoken by someone who has never run their own business...

It is the consultants *time* that has value - its the one thing we have that we cannot ever get back. Time spent processing GPL source requests is time not spent with family, or time not spend earning a living to pay bills, student loans, etc. Or even time not spent doing what one enjoys - hacking, drinking, etc.

Suppose that consultant were to get 100 requests a week, and cannot meet them in any sort of a timely fashion without cutting into his work time - your way of thinking would obligate him to become a pauper for the convenience of the GPL at the demand of people who recieved a gift from him!

So it is reasonable for a person to charge what you call "opportunity cost", which becomes a direct cost if you are going to coerce him to do so under threat of legal action via the GPL.

To put it the way I see it, basically, when you start making demands of my time for your convenience after I do you the favor of donating code to freely, your freedom stops and mine begin! You have no right to dicate how I supply the source outside of what the GPL stipulates, only that I supply it and at a reasonable cost. And reasonable costs can be charged as long as they are directly related to the distribution of the source. My time and your consumption of it are a reasonable cost to charge.

My solution would be to amend the GPL to allow distros to simply supply the diffs - and to deem that to be sufficient if the larger complete source tree is freely available elsewhere. Its seems more common-sense to say one need not carry the whole upstream distro if all one is doing is tweaking a few things in a few files in the kernel and associatied utilities, etc.

Do that and you somewhat get around this.

Or use a BSD-style license and avoid the whole mess. ;-)

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[EQ]

"Sir, if you're making $50 an hour, you certainly can afford the bandwidth."

50 an hour is a pittance for consultants - remember you have to pay self employment taxes, eat your down time, market and advertise, eat the time you spend on bookeeping, eat the accounting and tx prep pro fees, etc. This isnt 50/hour punch a clock at the local best-buy geeksquad. I doubt, given your remark, that you have ever run your own business.

And I stipulated rural - ther are still plenty of areas in the US that you cannot get a good high bandwidth connection to (no bale, and DSL is too far), and which have poor southern visibility (mountain areas), so satellite is not an answer. Its nto ananswer anyway - hav you read the restrictions on bandwidth and data volumes that are in place on those services?

So go call your local provider and ask how much a 15 mile T-1 from the nearest CO will cost. THEN com back and tell me 50/hr can afford that. Local RBOCs and even the CLECs will rape you on custom data lines out past the 'burbs.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'd say that is perfectly reasonable. The point of that clause is to prevent you from charging say, $100000 effectively shutting out the source from everyone. With a fee of $100 (or even $1000) I can just request a copy of the source and then further distribute it to everyone preventing it from becoming property.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[tfried]

Suppose that consultant were to get 100 requests a week, and cannot meet them in any sort of a timely fashion without cutting into his work time

Let's set aside the question, whether this is likely at all, for a moment. But if the poor consultant really gets 100 requests a week, why doesn't he contract someone do to this for him? As someone who has "run their own business" that would seem like an obvious solution, no? In fact, should you come into this situation, I'll happily do the work for you, and I'll only charge $40/h to the people requesting the source code, too.

- your way of thinking would obligate him to become a pauper for the convenience of the GPL at the demand of people who recieved a gift from him!

You're overlooking an important point: If you are bound by the obligations of the GPL, it's because you're distributing somebody else's work, not (only) yours. Your way of thinking would mean to put whoever you received a gift from to handle the work resulting from you passing it on. In some cases this "upstream author" will have much better infrastructure for dealing with requests for source, but in some cases they might even have more trouble, or their time may be even more costly. Hence, it's entirely reasonable to say: "If you redistribute my work, then you will have to deal with the end user". Just what the GPL does.

Or use a BSD-style license and avoid the whole mess. ;-)

Which is entirely reasonable, if - and only if - it's your original work, and you are not bound to respect any other author's rights. However in this case - you wrote it entirely from scratch - it really does not matter, which licence you chose. Even if you distribute your own work under the GPL, you can in no way be bound to it's restrictions. You are the sole copyright holder in this case, and so you have all the rights. The only thing you do is to tell people who redistribute your software, that they a) may do so b) only under certain conditions. One of those conditions is to tell redistributors that they should deal with the consequences of redistributing themselves, and not rely on you to do all the associated work. So it's more family time for the overworked consultant, not less. Nice, isn't it?

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[ookaze]

Not a troll, nor flamebait - just "hacking" the 'reasonable' clause and cost in the GPL

If it is not a troll nor flamebait, then it is just plain stupid.

Hypothetical:
Say I make (ast an hourly rate of my annual salary) $50 an hour. Not unresaonable for a consultant

Here comes the stupidity. The GPL says you have to provide the code for the cost of handling, not for the cost of a consultant.
To give the code is not a mean to make a living, not in the GPL.

Figure it takes me 20 minutes to process the request, type up the label, grab the latest from my repository and DL the rest fromthe upstream, burn a DVD, and put it in a protective mailer package. And other 20 to go to the post office and 20 to come back (assume I'm in a rural area outside the suburbs). So thats and our of my time. Add in that this is essentially overtime in addition to my real job, so I bill it at time and a half. Thats $75 baseline in cost

So no, it's not. The price of DVD + burning + label + mailer package + gas is OK. Not your time as a consultant. The GPL does not ask you to be a consultant, but to give the source. Any reasonable person can understand that. So if you're reasonable but not a troll nor flamebait, you must be stupid.
Even fansub people asked far less to send VHS all over the world.

"Yes, you can have the whole source tree from my upstream and the 2K of diffs I have added - the reasonable cost for this source is $94.37 per CD"
Is that the right answer?

No, it's an idiot answer. It's so stupid that paying for bandwidth every month would be far cheaper.
There's chance too, that if someone's so stupid, nobody would need their code.

Every penny of it is documented and accounted for. Every bit of it is involved with the cost in materiels and time that it takes to prepare and ship the source. My software is free, my time is not

Most stupid thing I read today. The account you keep isn't in line with what the GPL asks anyway (no consultant fee).
Now, you say your time is not free, but you distribute binaries and not source ? What kind of BS is that ?
How come you lose your time to compile binaries instead of just giving the source code ? The source code came before, remember ?
How come you take an open source license, and then can't understand you have to give the source code, but release binaries only instead ?
That just does not make sense at all. You're describing someone who distributes freeware, not open source.
There's also a big contradiction in someone who says his time is not free, but actually manage a distro alone !!!
If your time is not free and you can't stand 'losing' it, then you should be on the receiving end of the distro, not the maker of it.

If you think otherwise, go ahead and put yourself down as a slave who will work for free at the demands of people that use the software you donated - is that the intend of the GPL, to enslave authors to the whims of the recipients of their gifts?

And you say you're not a troll ?
What you describe is exactly what the author of Mepis did. Now you go on insulting him saying he enslaved himself. And then you go on to say, by a completely broken logic, that the GPL enslaved the guy. Can you remember who chose the GPL for its project ? Yes, the author of the project. Nobody forced or enslaved anyone to take all these GPL projects and make a distro off them.

Does the GPL give someone the right to dictate to the person releasing the software what they can and cannot do with their time? Think about it.

It's all thought out : try to think coherently !
The GPL does not choose the author of the software, the author of the software choose the GPL. When you can understand this very basic thing, you can actually say something coherent.

If not, then how do you overcome the situation above, where the GPL seems to imply that you have to release the whole of the code, including upstreams, not just your diffs, especially

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[umeboshi]

It's not double billing. Time spent on processing requests could be better spent elsewhere. It could be time making money at 50/hr or it could be time spent freely. If the person's time is worth 50/hr to him/her, they would charge you that rate for consulting, or for sand the floor or wax the cars. I certainly would. If I was feeling generous, I would make cd's or dvd's, else I would just charge for distribution on a usb external drive. For larger distro's, the external drive would be the least time consuming.

Re:I wonder what reasonable is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well why didn't you put the source on the CD/DVD to begin with? Or on the website where you give out the source? Given that you are giving the CD with binary out on it, why is doing the same with the source costing you $100?

It does not stop there

[houghi]

SUSE has several Non official SUSE Linux versions

It is said that you can do this. The only thing you need is to remove the Novell opyrighted stuff. Unfortunatly it is not very clear what they are and what they are not. It is not just the README and such files and screens, but also e.g. the OOo customized popup screen.

Re:It does not stop there

[guabah]

I think they refer to artwork and branding, like redhat(CentOS does that and a bit more)

Choice

[nurb432]

It wasnt flamebait, as you have the choice.. You can use a more restrictive license then GPL or a more free one. GPL is in the middle somewhere.

its your code, you choose the license youwant to distribute under. I'm only saying that there are more restrictions with GPL licensing then there are with BSD, and this is a good example of them. Yes i understand that is by design and the intent of RMS from the beginning. I just prefer the more free route, even if that means someone might out and sell my code while i dont get a dime for it, ( though i do get credit ). its the price i pay for being 'more' free.

Re:Choice

[EQ]

Actually, since RMS lieks to bring moralityinto it:

Isn't the BSD icense the mor moral of the two?

It doenst hold a legal gunto the head of the person reciveing the work. It instead depends on their generousity and choosing to "do the right thing" in contributing back additions and changes. Volunarily!

So which is the better moral act - a forced one under threat of coercion, or one voltionally made of one's own sense of justice?
Not trolling, but just saying you can make a moral case for BSD being morally superior, from a deontological point of view for ethics (i.e. the ends do *not* justify the means).

As Kant himself said:

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end (in himself/yourself).

So from a deontological poitn of view, the BSD is moral and the GPL is immoral? /boggle.

Quick, someone call a philosophy major!

Method, please?

[meburke]

The reasons for making the source code available are sound. The exact source for each version of the distro should be available. When I get a distro, I could be satisfied with an archive of the complete source, even though it contains lots of code that hasn't been modified. I would also appreciate an archive of source for only the changed packages. Perhaps someone hasa set of best practices to share with us?

GPL now works!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it the essence of GPL to allow everyone to question about it? People in the Open Source world gets interested in talks about legal matter. It means maturity and responsability. Whether this guy from MEMPIS is right or not is another matter and talking about the issue is important to clear things up. It's also about freedom..

Captcha: validity !

Safe Harbor

[conlaw]

The jounalist who wrote that article should have prefaced his definition of "safe harbor" with the old acronym "IANALB" (I am not a lawyer but...). Safe harbors have absolutely nothing to do with good faith; in fact, many of those who utilize safe harbors do so in really bad faith (e.g., tax shelters that are just within the law). A safe harbor is an exception in a regulation which provides that anyone who meets the definition is safe from being in violation of that regulation. The example that nearly everyone recognizes is the concept of "grandfathering"; for example, "every store built after this regulation is in effect must have three clearly marked exits." The two-exit stores existing at the time of the regulation are within a safe harbor.

Here endeth the rant for the day!

Re:Safe Harbor

[Anonymous Coward]

SO the guy who built a store with only two exits before the law changed to require three was acting in bad faith??????

Sorry, I think most people taking advantage of "safe harbors" are in fact doing so in good faith.

Why not worry about making the product work?

[Vermyndax]

Wow. I sure do with Linux hackers would spend as much time fixing buggy-ass source code as they do splitting hairs over the GPL. No wonder the GPL works better than the code does.

Why isn't this on the front page?

[dedazo]

Not even as one of those little links in-between the stories? Isn't this important? If this was the latest "OMFG M$ IS TEH SUXX LOLOLOL" article would it be relegated to the section without exposure to the front page? Does it bring up too much reality for everyone to digest at once?

That lets Free software grows!

[arkaino]

"I think that what they're doing is probably going to be bad for creativity in the open source community"

No way, that's what makes it free software too, source code must be available. Don't tell me how, just make it available.

FreeBSD and distributed RPM packages

[MavEtJu]

People working on the FreeBSD Ports Collection have had this discussion too with regarding to re-distributed RPMs for for example the linux Userland emulators.

At the end they decided just to download the original SRPMS and make them available at the FreeBSD ftp sites too, just to get out of the hassle of it.

patch files?

[corychristison]

I know this is a little late in the discussion, but I did a quick search on the page and couldn't find anything about patch files.

Would this affect any small source-based distro's that use patches on top of the original source files? [sort of like Gentoo, 'cept they aren't small]

Lately I've been thinking about building a small distro based on Gentoo or even just "roll your own" for my self. If I intend on releasing it to the public [I am still uncertain] would patch sets be the easiest route if I were to need to actually modify any code[it will be a source-based distro]?

Re:patch files?

[Tony Hoyle]

Yes.

Patches contain parts of the original source therefore the patch is covered by GPL too.

Of course this means that distribution of patches is pointless.. you have to distribute the source *anyway* or you'll have the FSF on your back.

Re:patch files?

[DavidTC]

However, you can distribute the original source, the patch, and any automated tools. You don't have to make everything up nice and fancy.

Re:patch files?

[Rob4127]

Consider the case of GNU GCC for the Motorola ColdFire. This page includes the email from Richard Stallman: http://fiddes.net/coldfire/old-index.html.

You'd think...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Google returns about 24.8 billion results for the word "the". Keep in mind, that's four times the total number of people on the planet. It's 32 times the number of people online. So assuming all things were equal, that would mean that even if we wired up every person on the planet, they would each have four webpages, at least.

Sorry, but we're not there yet. You'd think it'd be time for some natural selection of the Internet. Who the fuck wants to read anything Jack Thompson has to say? Surely we could do without Heroic domain and typo squatters, couldn't we?

The problem is, even if no one clicks on typosquatter ads for quite awhile, these Heroic pages probably won't go away without a fight. They'll find other ways to make money, other places to hide, all without cancelling the ones that aren't working.

So what happens to all the old Linux distros? Oh, they might even still be available, but the unpopular ones won't be maintained. Remember tomsrtbt? That was my best recovery tool, before I had a cd burner, cheap CDs, and noticed how everyone had ubiquitous CD drives. Now I use RIP. Let's compare those -- tomsrtbt still works on the same computers it did before, but doesn't support the filesystems I need, and my main computer no longer has a floppy drive -- not to mention, it was last released in 2002. RIP probably takes less time to load, even though it pulls some 75 megs into RAM before you use it, versus tomsrtbt's 2 megs, because tomsrtbt is on a floppy (a slower floppy than usual), and RIP is on a CD. And let's not forget, RIP was last released four days ago.

So, why is tomsrtbt still online? It's still on DistroWatch, even.

The problem is, when a project is truly forgotten, you also forget to remove it, even if there's a natural replacement.

It works!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know this? You're scaring me...

This is why distros like Gentoo have an advantage

[mrchaotica]

Instead of having their own copy of the package's source, all Gentoo does is make a script that points to the upstream package in most cases. I imagine it makes things a lot easier...

Re:This is why distros like Gentoo have an advanta

[**loki969**]

No it doesn't. On the contrary, most of the files reside on Gentoo servers and only a few get fetch from upstream. ;)

why is it so hard?

[noldrin]

Don't people read and make sure they understand a license before they start distributing software under it? Just copy the source file from the original distro and post them on your FTP site. You could set up a script to do this while you sleep at night. The distro I use, BLAG, which is only a couple people seems to have no problem with being a derivative of fedora and offering the source in both individual SRPMs and ISOs.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

[starseeker]

Does the FSF have the power to insist on this for software they don't have copyright on (like, IIRC, the vast majority or even all of the Linux Kernel?)

If they request the source code to a GPL package, and the author ignores them, what option do they have? I imagine the original copyright holder(s) would have an action as the original author(s) but I fail to see what standing the FSF has unless they are a copyright holder.

This is an honest question - I don't know how this aspect of law (copyright law, maybe some other laws sneak in?) would actually work. What are the limits?

Of course, the linux distro that isn't chock full of GNU tools is a rare bird indeed...

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the FSF have the power to insist on this for software they don't have copyright on (like, IIRC, the vast majority or even all of the Linux Kernel?)

NO

If they request the source code to a GPL package, and the author ignores them, what option do they have? I imagine the original copyright holder(s) would have an action as the original author(s) but I fail to see what standing the FSF has unless they are a copyright holder.

FSF has no F standing. That "they" have to file a case in the country and location where the violation happened. Ie. the violator must be under the jurisdiction of the court where "they" file the case. If the original author is not the sole copyright holder, source code wise majority copyright holders must be participated (standing) in the case.

This is an honest question - I don't know how this aspect of law (copyright law, maybe some other laws sneak in?) would actually work. What are the limits?

The violator has to agree to provide the source code. Problem solved. By that time, copyright holders have already spent a fortune. Copyright holders can apply for bankruptcy.

The lesson of the story is if you want to give something free, give it free, don't expect anything in return.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[adminispheroid]

The FSF can only take someone to court over GPL violations when it's a piece of software that they hold the copyright for. The GPL is your license to copy, provided you do what it says. If you don't do what it says, then you have no license, and if you copy anyhow, then you are infringing copyright. Only the copyright holder has standing to take you to court for infringement. But of course, anybody can write you a complaining email.

There's an important legal difference between licenses like the GPL and BSD on the one hand, and Microsoft's EULA on the other. If you violate the EULA, Microsoft can take you to court for contract violation and/or copyright infringement. But if you "violate" the GPL, the only claim you can get hit with is copyright infringement. The key difference is that you "agreed" to the EULA, which then obligates you in certain ways; but you never had to agree to the GPL.

So if you're distributing linux w/o complying with the GPL, then you are infringing the copyright of about a bazillion people, and any one of them has standing to take you to court.

Letter and Spirit of the GPL

[jasonditz]

The GPL was meant to ensure availability of source code. It was meant to empower the individual developer.

Now that GPL software has become big business, that same license is being used to chase the new, smalltime players out, by insisting that they provide expensive but meaningless mirrors of a bunch of unmodified software that's available a zillion other places.

Re:Letter and Spirit of the GPL

[guabah]

Except that nobody is required to burn bandwidth to release the code. Just having the source somewhere so that people could get it from you, you can even charge for it if you want(as long as it's not an excesive charge)

And as I mentioned in a post above, up to 10x the cost is still a reasonable price.

the other 50

[RickBauls]

'I think, of the 500 distributions tracked by DistroWatch, probably 450 of them are in trouble right now per this position.' and the other 50 are BSD variants.

Take what it gives.

[twitter]

There is no upgrade path from one version of MEPIS to the next.

Well, that's what happens when you mix in non free stuff like Macromedia flash, Real Player, Nvidia drivers, NDis wrappers, Vonage clients, etc. Non free is brittle. It might be less brittle than the Windoze world, but it will never be as easy as the free world.

Free packages in Mepis upgrade with about as much grace as you can expect. Just last week, I upgraded Kontact from a 2003 edition to Etch. This worked out OK through apt-get outside of X. It got all the KDE goodies, xorg and other dependencies and just worked when it was done. There was one hang up, but the system itself told me what magic phrase to type.

There appears to be a very weak mechanism for collecting community know-how as to how to configure the system to "just work" on a particular platform.

Nuts. Mepis is one of the easiest distributions to install. If it works off the CD, it will work off your hard drive and Mepis works with more hardware than anything else I've ever tried.

Mepis is still a great distribution to install for someone when you don't want to spend a lot of time. It demonstrates what free software can do. The problems it has are the problems of non free software in general and those rear their head far less often on a Mepis system than they do on less free platforms. In short, don't give up a useful tool just because one person says some stupid things.

Warren can and will fix this little source code problem and this little non issue will fade away without trace. The chances are that some co operative solution will be easiest. Distributions which use the same package unmodified can get together to share the cost and expense of keeping the source code available.

Re:Take what it gives.

[Anonymous Coward]

Warren can and will fix this little source code problem and this little non issue will fade away without trace

Well, no matter. It can still be used as a bullet point to prove that "Linux sucks", just like your little "M$ sues schools" and "Ballmer doesn't let his kids use an iPod" FUD bullshit. Life sucks, doesn't it? How does it feel after all this time of "Windoze sux install teh Mepis" claptrap to find out it's not as free as you thought? BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Re:This is why distros like Gentoo have an advanta

[WilliamSChips]

No, Gentoo has an advantage because they don't have to deal with the kludge of binary packages.

Big Deal

[UnseenEnigma]

So everything remains as normal (ubuntu or debian base + mods). If asked to provide offer only a mail option (having to pay anything will prevent people from caring). All you do is grab the binary install it and write a quick script to grab all installed packages source from the repository.

To recap: Not likely to happen and 30 minutes work if it does. Wow the horror

Just distribute the code already.

[martinultima]

I happen to be a distro maintainer myself – yes, I know, I say that every single post, but at least now it actually is relevant – and I'll admit, up until recently I didn't distribute any of the source code either. But starting with the latest release, I've done no less than three whole discs of nothing but source – it's really not that hard to do, honestly.

(If you're wondering, it had nothing to do with the FSF or GPL zealots; I've been working on doing an AMD64 port of my system, and that meant I had to move away from simply pulling pre-existing x86 binaries and actually start building the source myself. Honestly, it actually seems to be working a lot better this way.)

Just in case any other would-be distribution maintainers are reading this, I may as well offer some advice – I've just put together a set of three ISO images containing the complete source code, as well as build scripts, etc. to automate the compile process. You really just have to know how to distribute it. As far as my distro's concerned, I don't actually distribute the ISO images or CD's myself – all the downloads, etc. go through MadTux.org, who not only host everything at no cost to me, but they also donate some of the money from monthly CD sales to me to continue development, pay for Web hosting, etc. So get someone like them to help with the hard part (actually distributing everything) and once that's out of the way, you should be fine.

Free software foundation rights

[guabah]

I've read some posts arguing about how the Free Software Foundation(FSF) has no standing to take GNU/Linux distributors to court for non compliance with the GPL. Well, let's take a look on how they do have standing be checking some of the software in FSF's GNU Project.

• GNU Coreutils
• GNU Compiler Colection
• GNU Ghostscript
• GNU GRUB

There's more, not all of the sofware I mentioned is copyrighted by the FSF, but I'm sure some of the most important is. Not to mention that companies like Trolltech own the copyrights of vital parts of SimplyMEPIS and other distributions.

Compliance is trivial for Debian Derived Distros

[dondelelcaro]

If you're a distribution who is derived from Debian, or derived from a derivative of Debian, there's no excuse for not complying with GPL 3a when you're distributing electronically, or 3b when you're distributing physically without making the source code equivalently available.

It's a simple as mirroring the diff.gz, orig.tar.gz, and .dsc of every package that you're distributing the .deb of. If you've modified the package, you've generated a new orig.tar.gz and a new diff.gz in the process; if you're using dak, you even had to send these to the archive in order for it to accept them. [If not, hopefully you're at least using something that makes sure you've uploaded all of the debs that you've built to your archive and checks the md5sum of them in the .dsc]

This isn't exactly a new problem, and it's one of the reasons why it's so trivial in Debian to get access to the source, and why all of the mirror scripts that Debian distributes also mirror the source.

The problem with a "kinda free" software

[RexRhino]

The problem with the GPL is that it is awefully restrictive for being "free" software. When I think of "free", I think of a crazy bearded guy, driving down the freeway without a helmet at breakneck speeds on his hog or something like that... not the rigid, arbitrary moral and legal document of some sort of utopian zealot. I think the GPL is more "freedom" in the G. W. Bush use of the word, than the wild-ass anarchist sense of the word.

I consider the new BSD licence to be much closer to "free software"... Do whatever the hell you want with the code, but you are not allowed to restrict the use by anyone else or sue anyone!

Now, you may say that I don't understand the GPL... which might very well be true! I don't claim to be an expert at all. But that just proves my point - If I need to master some complex and subtle understanding of the GPL in order to use it properly, then it is not free in any conventional sense of the word. Police need to read a person their rights when they are being arrested, because if a person doesn't understand their rights then they don't have any rights. If I don't understand the GPL, then clearly I have no rights under the GPL.

The BSD licence, on the other hand, is pretty damn easy to understand, and it is as damn near anarchist as a binding legal agreement can get.

Re:The problem with a "kinda free" software

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is still too restrictive. You have to put the copyright notice in the code.

Look, you use BSD, OK. I'll use GPL.

BSD means you, the one wanting to distribute the code freeer, but it can make the general public less free. You are a lot more free, a lot of people are a little less free.

When I think of BSD, I think of spaced-out hippies going "yeah, man". Or slimey wormtongue-types sleazing their way into your work, saying "come on, let it free. you know you want to".

PS it isn't that you don't understand the GPL, but that you are misrepresenting it. Deliberately, probably.

Re:The problem with a "kinda free" software

[Anonymous Coward]

When I think of "free", I think of a crazy bearded guy [...]

Isn't this what comes to just about everyones mind when thinking about GPL as well?

what 'reasonable' clause?

[adminispheroid]

Not a troll, nor flamebait - just "hacking" the 'reasonable' clause and cost in the GPL.

Maybe it would help to notice that the word "reasonable" does not appear in this section of the GPL. It says "a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution". So you don't need to be prepared to convince the judge it's "reasonable," you just have to be prepared to convince the judge it is your cost.

GPL3

[themusicgod1]

People! This license is under active development! If you have a problem with it, make *sure* to point it out *now* to the developers, if it's a bug it might be fixable in the near future.

Re:GPL3

[AlgorithMan]

it's not a bug, it's a feature ;)

The Rock Linux Distribution Build Kit is GPL

[alanw]

A possible solution for some distributions would be rPath's rBuilder Online, a tool whose use is free for non-commercial purposes and which allows users to build their own distribution using a repository of the Conary packaging system.

Alternatively, use the Rock Linux Distribution Build Kit, licensed under the GPL

Surely I'm breaking the law?

[chippo]

From my reading of it, it would seem that, strictly speaking, I'm not allowed to burn an Ubuntu ISO for my friend, if I'm not also prepared to give him the source, should he ask.

Did I misunderstand the license?

Re:Surely I'm breaking the law?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Yes, you misunderstand. Noncommercial redistribution as you describe is covered by

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Re:Surely I'm breaking the law?

[DragonWriter]

Strictly speaking, one could argue you aren't allowed to seed a Ubuntu ISO torrent unless (a) the ISO includes the source, (b) you are also seeding the source, or (c) you somehow manage to provide a written offer valid for 3 years to provide the source to anyone who downloads the torrent.

Of course, practically speaking, its pretty much impossible to enforce this requirement.

Re:Surely I'm breaking the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone who isn't anonymous mod parent up. This is a really good point.

RMS's Emacs tapes

[OoberMick]

Seems reasonable to me. RMS sold emacs tapes for $150 and that was in the early '80s so I can't see a problem with someone charging $94.37 for a DVD.

Re:RMS's Emacs tapes

[JRaven]

RMS could get away with that because the tapes were the only means of getting emacs from him.

Under the GPL you can charge all you want for the software, and as long as you provide the source code at the same time your obligation is over. So if someone went up to RMS asking for the emacs code, either (1) they had previously received the source (on a tape) from RMS or (2) they had never received either source or binaries from RMS. Regardless the GPL imposes no responsibility on RMS to provide anything in those cases, and so he is free to charge whatever he wants for a copy of the source -- or even refuse to give them anything. In short, the price he charged was not the "cost of physically performing source distribution" mandated by the GPL because the terms of the GPL were not in effect.

To reiterate: As long as you provide the source when you sell the software (for however much you care to charge), you NEVER need to respond to requests for the source.

Mind you, nothing in the GPL stops anyone who bought the source from putting it online or otherwise distributing it themselves, but if they choose to put binaries online it's then their responsibility to make the source available (though not necessarily online) to anyone who asks for it. This possibility didn't really cause too much of a revenue problem for RMS because (1) people wanted to support him, and (2) network access was much more limited at the time.

About your sig line ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate grammar Nazi's.

"nazis". The word "nazis" should not be captalized unless referring to actual Nazis (or, of course, at the beginning of a sentence), and an apostrophe is not used for pluralization.

Re:About your sig line ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzt. The word 'Nazi' should always be capitalized, because it's always a proper noun. Just because you can use it figuratively instead of literally doesn't make it a common noun.

Re:About your sig line ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have been trolled, tyvm.

Make some money!

[pdqlamb]

Since the GPL allows you to charge for the cost of distributing the code, why not make money at it? Note FSF did the same thing; although they've gone to public downloads now, they used to charge (IIRC) $75 for an emacs tape, or $150 for the gcc source.

So start with the cost of a blank DVD ($1); add the cost of shipping ($5 or so for USPS Priority Mail); and then your time, including the time it takes to burn the DVD, to pack it, and to go down to the post office and mail it; say 1.5 hours@$30/hour. ($100/hour if you're a consultant.)

The source code is free, you have to provide it to anyone who asks for it; but it isn't free, you don't have to pay to give it away.

Re:Make some money!

[martinultima]

Exactly! (Right now, I've got the source available for free, but I've also got the written offer online – you get the source in exchange for a "reasonable fee"... as far as I'm concerned, I'd say that somewhere between $ARM or $LEG is reasonable, considering the amount of effort that went into this – patching every single one of over 300 packages, by hand, to build for more than one processor architecture isn't exactly easy work!)

and this just in from the Larry King dept...

[Anonymous Coward]

...water is wet.

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's correct, afaik.

A NON-EVENT, that's what happens.

[NetRAVEN5000]

"what happens to a distro like MEPIS? Do they need to retain a full and publically available source repository for every package in Ubuntu?"

What happens is the guys at MEPIS make the sources available for any changes they made. Which they've already got from when they changed the code. It's no hassle -- it'll take them all of 10 minutes, they can just start it copying those source files and then walk away from the computer and do something else, use a different computer, take a walk -- and it's a real non-event.

Read the GPL, it might help you out. If you don't change the code, you don't have to distribute it.

"surely all a downstream distro has to do is refer to those sources for untainted packages? Is this good enough for the FSF, or are they just going to turn into the bully of the FOSS community?"

Yes, that's all a downstream distro has to do. Yes that's good enough for the FSF.

The problem is, that MEPIS *did* make some changes, and those need to be made available.

I don't see why this is such a big deal. A developer created some software under the GPL. If you want to distribute that software you need to comply to the GPL. Simple as that. If you don't like it, don't use that software.

Re:A NON-EVENT, that's what happens.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually, no, you are positing as part of the solution the continuation of the violation. When you distribute binaries w/o source code, you have obligations. It doesn't matter if you've made changes to the source code, which is the point of the article.

"We think it's pretty clear," says David Turner, GPL compliance engineer at the FSF. "One problem with allowing people to skip out on source code distribution is that there's nothing that requires the upstream distributor to continue to offer source code. If they stop doing so, the source could become totally unavailable. Or, more commonly, the upstream distributor will upgrade the version of the source code available, leaving downstream distributors totally out of sync. In order to fix bugs, users need to get source code exactly corresponding to the binaries they have available."

What matters is if you distribute. Once you've distributed, you are obligated to provide the source, not merely refer to where the source could be obtained.

Re:A NON-EVENT, that's what happens.

[NetRAVEN5000]

Okay, so then you also copy over the source code you didn't modify. Either way it's still a non-event, just start the machine copying all the sources to a local medium or to your server, let the machine do its thing and leave it alone for a while, and then when you come back it'll be done. Easy as that.

What about a source based distro such as Gentoo...

[scharkalvin]

Since you don't download binary packages from Gentoo, only build scripts
and patches, Gentoo doesn't need to post the sources on their servers.
They only post the sources to the build scripts and any patches they
wrote. The build scripts have the URLs of the source code in them and
download the sources. So once the packages are built the sources
are on YOUR MACHINE, unless you opt to have them deleted after building
the binaries (to save disk space).

Distribution costs are capped, too.

[oscartheduck]

Though I'm sure others have pointed this out, I wanted to be certain that there was a comment somewhere inidcating that the GPL actually puts a limit on how much you can charge to send CDs etc with the source on them, so that this is a perfectly legitimate way of getting source out there. It's not a for-profit thing but a for-freedom thing.

Re:Distribution costs are capped, too.

[yarbo]

from 3 b:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

emphasis mine

3b says *any third party*

[Anonymous Coward]

you are, therefore, obligated to either provide the source code (under 3(a)) or provide a written offer, valid for at least three years, to whoever you give the object/executable software to that you will provide the source code, at your cost (under 3(b)). (emphasis added)

The emphasized part of what you said above is wrong. If you actually read Section 3b, it says that the written offer must be valid for any third party, not just whoever you give the executable to.

The "any third party" phrase in section 3b is one of the few hidden surprises in the GPL. A lot of people miss it even after reading the GPL thoroughly several times.

3b is a pain

[renehollan]

First of all, I failed to highlight the GPL excerpt above. It was the first two paragraphs that start with "3. You may copy..."

3b is a pain because you have to offer source to anyone who asks, pursuant to obtaining it under 3c from you or anyone who obtained it under a chain of 3c distributers from you. Usually, people will want to use 3c (and point to a 3b distributer) because they can't afford the bandwidth to offer source. This means that they are trying to punt the cost of source distribution onto someone else who distributes under 3b. Furthermore, they are trying to punt the cost of all downstream 3c distributers.

Clearly, someone distributing under 3b must be prepared for a lot of requests. While they can offset their costs to meet those requests, offers taken up have to be satisfied in a timely manner (otherwise the offer is not in good faith), and it might take significant infrastructure to be able to do this.

Now, the 3b distributor can require that the requestor prove that they have gotten binaries from either them, or any number of downstream 3c distributers from them before providing source. I suppose that the 3b distributer could issue a digitally signed "receipt" to the 3c distributer when providing binaries, and only provide source upon presentation of that receipt (which, if I understand 3b correctly, is their right). That receipt does not have to be transferrable. However, the only way any downstream 3c redistributer can redistribute under 3c is to transfer the 3b offer, and that offer is only good upon presentation of a valid receipt, so additional receipts have to be purchased.

That's a really grey area. Effectively one is constraining redistribution under 3c but only to the extent of additional requirements that have to be met in order to prove a right to the 3b source distributor. I think this is O.K. (but, of course, IANAL): you can still redistribute under 3c without meeting them, since you accompany it with 3b's offer to provide source to anyone who can trace binaries back to 3b my way of 3c redistribors. It's proof of that tracability that you're providing.

Re:3b is a pain

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I believe you are mistaking what "any third party" means. Rather, I don't have to have the binaries to be "any third party." I might want the source code to teach my class, and could care less about anything in object or executable form. When you distribute under 3b, any third party who requests the source code to you is a valid request.

Re:3b is a pain

[renehollan]

Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code... [empasis mine]

Corresponding to what? To the binaries. 3b does not compel you to provide source to all comers, only to those who have the corresponding binaries, which only the 3b licensor or 3c "downsetreamers" can provide.

I suppose you could argue that "any third party" is independent of the party that received the binaries, directly, or indirectly via a 3c downstreamer, but I don't think a court would see it that way: 3b and 3c clearly go together.

Furthermore, the "offer" is made by the 3b distributer to the 3c redistributer, not to all parties. IOW, the 3c redistributer can say to the 3b distributer, "give source to him", but an arbitrary third party can't say "give source to me". However, the 3c redistributer can transfer the 3b offer to a downstream 3c redistributer. In fact, he must. Having done that, the offer is now extended to another party, who can say top 3b, "give it to 'him', meaning me."

Look at it another way: if I don't redistribute binaries "to you" or cause them to come "to you", I don't have to give you source, even if you ask for it, just because I gave binaries to someone else.

Re:3b is a pain

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Corresponding source code means the source code which when compiled will generate the binaries. In this sentence that is all it means. To try to read anything further is fantasy. The "any third party" is clear, and isn't new, and has always meant "any third party". Discussion of ways to write this so it would mean what you want it to mean were looked at and felt to provide loopholes against the original intent, and so broadening this to "any third party" was seen as the lesser of two evils. It surely isn't perfect, but it does mean what it says.

I call "bullshit."

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I sense a contradiction here. He couldn't connect to the net, and needed kernel source code to correct this problem... Ok, fine, but then how did he ever get online to the forums? Since he was online and asked for directions (from people with no legal requirement to answer), he should have simply located and downloaded the source. It isn't as though it is hidden away. If he can get to the forums but can't download, then being told where to download wouldn't have helped. I call "bullshit."

Re:I call "bullshit."

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Troll? Hardly. Reread what the parent said, and the comment regarding the contradiction. This is Logic 101, people, not Quantum Physics.

Users can sue

[DragonWriter]

No you are wrong. The original poster is correct, only the copyright holder can sue you.

The original poster is wrong. Even though the downstream user is not a party to the contract requiring you to provide the source code (only the upstream distributor is—in the instance of the GPL contract that the downstream user may become a party to by accepting the GPL by, e.g., distributing the object/executable, they are required to provide the source code, you are not), they are what is, in law, called an intended beneficiary of the contract between the upstream provider of the GPL'd software and you and, as such, have legal rights to enforce the contract.

Re:Users can sue

[spitzak]

That's just a load of nonsense. The GPL cannot enforce anything that copyright cannot do, as it is not a contract or anything other than a paper saying "you MAY violate the copyright on this if you follow these rules".

The person violating the copyright is the person making the distribution and they are ONLY liable to the coypright holder, nobody else, no matter what, becasue copyright law does not make them liable to anybody else. Trying to claim the GPL is somehow more powerful than copyright is a classic piece of FUD, the GPL is an *EXCEPTION* to copyright and thus by definition is somewhere *between* it and public domain.

Re:Applies to other GPL - not to OpenSolaris

[maitas]

What I like about this, is that as RMS once said that exchanging freedom for convineance is a big mistake (regarding the BitKeeper affair), the same thing can be said about GPL.

  This Guy Traded freedom (he used a GPLed code) for convineance (the GPL code he used was the easiest route).

Now he have a simple solution. Go with OpenSolaris and its CDDL license won't force you to do things you don't want to do (what is happenning know to this poor guy).

  GPL is contraire to freedom, its forces you to post source code, there's not option about this...