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.'"
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.
liqbase
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?
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?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
-- Old Man Kensey
...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.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
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.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
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.
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.
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.
Why don't we completely rewrite the kernel from scratch and license it under something else?
Wait, I've heard that idea before somewhere...
I make websites and stuff. Buy one.
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.
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.
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.
sic transit gloria mundi
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?
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.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
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]?
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...
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
No, Gentoo has an advantage because they don't have to deal with the kludge of binary packages.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Does it sound reasonable to you that upstream pays for the bandwidth after they have already given the product out for free?