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

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?

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.

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: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?

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: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: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?

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.

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?

[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?

[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: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.