Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
GPL Deconstructed
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.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
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?
How we know is more important than what we know.
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)
liqbase
No, Debian uses section 3a.
Having the source downloadable from the same page/location as the binaries, or other "equivalent access" satisifes this obligation.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
bash$
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.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
"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.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
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:
From my experience, they would only have to make available the source code to the objects that were GPL in the first place.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Put identity in the browser.
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.
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
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.
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.
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.
GPL Deconstructed
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.
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.