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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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?

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: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.