Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Open to Aiding Derivative Distributions
lisah writes "Bruce Byfield wrote recently of a GPL requirement that may have unintended consequences for derivative distributions. Ubuntu's technical leader Matt Zimmerman responded with the suggestion that the folks at Ubuntu might be able to assist. From the article: 'It's less clear to me whether a legal agreement with the upstream distributor could satisfy this requirement," Zimmerman says, talking about the obligation to provide source code for everything that a distro ships, "but given that Ubuntu is already obligated to continue to distribute source code for as long as we distribute binaries, it's possible that we could offer that kind of assistance if it would help.'" Newsforge is also owned by OSTG.
This is mostly a non-issue. Why would anyone be wanting the source-code specific from a distrobution based on debian/ubuntu? the binary packages havn't changed, all they really need to do is hunt down the version of the software they wanted the source from. This whole providing the source thing is a bunch of FUD from a small group of people trying to make things difficult for small time distros. Props to the ubuntu for offering to help out, and make the FUD go away.
It isn't hard to distribute source. Why not just do so? (e.g. by copying the distribution you've derived from's source packages, as well as the binary ones that you aren't modifying).
but if a someone alread has the bandwidth and storage space to host a linux binary distribution, then how much more difficult could it be to make available the source packages used to build the distribution? It can't be that that difficult. It sounds like the small time distributions just want to leech^H^H^H^H^H create derivatives from the big distros, but not allow anyone to create a derivative from theirs.
I must be missing something here. Don't they just have to provide the source or a way for someone to request the source? Just make it part of your SOP to have the source available for everything you do.
Again, I'm no expert on these things, so maybe I've missed something?
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
Since they already distribute the all the binaries and source for the binaries that they changed, why is it so hard to make the source for the rest available? Storage space doesn't seem to be an issue, since most of these distros already have facilities to distribute large files. I really don't see the problem and don't think Ubuntu or Debian should be burdened for providing something these other distros can easily can do on their own.
Does anyone know of any [graphical] tree representations of all the linux distributions. This would look great, it's fantastic to see how the hundreds of distributions we have now are the forks of forks of only four maternal Eve's.
Those are Debian, Gentoo, Red Hat, Slackware.
A lot of comments right now are to the effect of, "Why is it so hard to distribute the source?". Well, let me ask you this, do you run or rent a web site at this time? Do you have any clue how massive the original sources for some of these derivative projects are? Imagine, for instance, you're a small freelancer who writes say, 4 mb of changes to a project, but then you find you have to provide the source for the 500 mb+ original. Most people cannot afford that kind of bandwidth. And before everyone jumps on me that you can just mail out a cd/dvd with the source on it after charging handling, yes that's legit, but thats not what the original people were asking, i'm just trying to clear up some of the confusion.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
A lot of people here don't seem to understand the problem with this GPL clause: Archives.
Suppose I redistribute binaries for a GPLed program, and the package I distribute is updated every week. On the server where I distribute the packages, I only need to distribute the latest version of the compiled code; however, due to the GPL requirements, I have to keep source packages available for the next 3 years -- that is, I need to keep 150+ source packages available.
It's easy to make the source code available in the same place as the executable code. Making the source code available in that same place for the next three years gets expensive.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
.. by including Kubuntu in its official project and also it may add Xubuntu for the XFCE based distro. Debian feedback is also provided as they still use alot of the same base for their bundled applications.
http://saveie6.com/
They are Open to Aiding Derivative Distributions since they themselves are a Derivative Distribution of Debian...
That was easy.
The open source world won't grow out of its current state until the viral GPL is purged from the world codebase.
if I had moderator status, I'd do it myself
I see these negative posts, but let's try it like this:
1. they have decided to HELP out the community....+ points
2. not all developers cna afford the bandwidth, or do not have the resources easily available to ship source or provide for download.....+points, as still available from Ubuntu
3. this can go on, I'll not bother- but the point being is Ubuntu is trying to HELP the community-what's not to like about this?
IMHO, this is showing the true spirit of FOSS, so unless you have an agenda against FOSS, then give 'em a hand/applause, whichever you can do!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
And, how about sourceforge etc? Sure a distro is large, but could they host it?
That sounds like referencing another distro would do it.This is silly. The GPL is not that nefarious.
All distribution ultimately relies on an "upstream" distributor.
Let's say you provide FTP access, but use a colocated server that you don't own -- you have an agreement with an upstream provider to provide bandwidth and disk space to provide your licensees with the source. Why does it matter if it's Rackspace or Ubuntu who serves as the upstream provider? Or if it's Memorex media and the Post Office or a floppy and delivered via sneakernet?
The intent here is clear: the entity distributing binaries to some users must also ensure that said users are able to come into possession of a copy of the source through reasonable means, be it downloading or making at-cost physical copies available. In other words, it seems to me that the distributor of binaries must only take some action for which the receipt of the desired source by the requesting licensee is a result.
> "On the server where I distribute the packages, I only need to distribute the latest version of the compiled code; however, due to the GPL requirements, I have to keep source packages available for the next 3 years -- that is, I need to keep 150+ source packages available."
:)
No, that's not true! I don't know if you're merely ignorant or trying to FUD, but bottom line is that you're simply wrong!
If you're making the source available with the binaries, then you don't need to make the source available for three years. The three-year clause (clause 3b) only applies if you're not providing source when you provide binaries. You can either (3a) provide source with the binaries or (3b) include a three-year written offer to provide the source or (3c) pass along a 3b offer that you received (non-commercial distributors only). Those are alternative options, not simultaneous requirements. And nobody with any sense uses anything but clause 3a! (Note: I've used all three.)
Look at the last paragraph in section 3: "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." (Emphasis mine.) This is the famous "equivalent access" clause that almost all non-commercial distros rely on, and have for years. (At least, all the ones run by people with any sense.)
So having source and binaries on your site qualifies as complying with clause 3a, and you don't need to worry about the three-year feature of 3b!
If you're distributing on CD/DVD, the same reasoning applies. Just ship the source too! Yes, it may double your up-front media costs, but those are trivial compared to your other costs, and it's going to save you a lot of trouble down the road.
Just compare.
;-) ... No ubuntu.us ever existed, and if it did, it would not get subverted.
In Fedora:
- RedHat controls the board that decides what goes in an what stays out. It's kind of like a "No Parking, Violators Will be Towed" thing.
- RedHat directly takes over source code maintenance for any package that they decide to include. Original authors are typically out of the loop.
- The old fedora.us was a user-created add-on package site for RedHat (which use to be free). Marketing at RedHat merged them, then toss them.
- Enhancements to code are made by RedHat are usually only available AFTER the RedHat releases software that uses them.
- Derivatives of RedHat software get no support, but I bet they get nice letters from RedHat legal.
In Ubuntu:
- You are encouraged to become a "Master of the Universe", and help decide what goes in and to maintain the packages.
- Ubuntu only takes control over core packages required for average end-users to have stable environments.
- There's little need for a user group to build unofficial add-ons (other than EasyBuntu
- Enhancements to open-source are fed back to the authors promptly. Authors are in the loop.
- Derivatives in theory will be welcomed.
Let's face it: RedHat is a public company controlled by shareholders. Their goal is therefore to suck more money out of us than ever before, and to do it in the next 12 months, so stockholders can sell their stock at a nice profit, and get out. Ubuntu is controlled by the BDFL (one man, the right man), and has been given over to a foundation for long-term viability. Their goal is to replace Windows on the Desktop, and to worry about how that translates into obscene wealth later.
As for the value of getting real support for a derivative distribution... if I were doing a startup based on Unbuntu code, I'd sure as heck want it!
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
A lot of comments right now are to the effect of, "Why is it so hard to distribute the source?". Well, let me ask you this, do you run or rent a web site at this time? Do you have any clue how massive the original sources for some of these derivative projects are?
Well, have you ever actually read the GPL? The GPL does not require that you offer the source for free, only that you guarantee that the source will be available for a reasonable fee for the effort to provide the source. There's nothing there that requires you to have the source available on a website.
Heck, download the sources and burn it a DVD-R. Have in the derivative distribution the offer to copy the DVD-R and send it for $10, postage included. That would be enough to fulfill the requirements of the DVD-R.
Not that I'm going to argue whether the GPL is or isn't nefarious... there's ample debates on that you can browse if you enjoy the firewarks... but I don't think "you have to make the source available" is all that "nefarious".
But you see this all the time. People shipping GPLed software and not providing the source to their version, even when they have modified it. I'm not talking about Sveasoft here, I'm talking about little guys who have no idea they're doing anything wrong because they didn't read or didn't understand the GPL. Or even distributing their own software as GPL while telling people they don't have to comply with the GPL, they're just using it because it's there.
I don't think you should use the GPL for your software if you don't actually mean everything in it to apply. That weakens the GPL and set your users up for a fall.
Just because you put 500M of source on-line doesn't mean anybody will bother downloading it.
Furthermore, the site doesn't have to be a free-for-all: you can have people sign up an charge a few bucks for the download; except for setting it up once, there is no additional work for you.
When, 3 years ago, I started developing a FreeDOS distribution called FD-ODIN, I did what MEPIS did, and actually got called on it by the FreeDOS developers themselves (I think it was actually Jim Hall but don't quote me) - even binding my distribution to a specific release of a specific version was not enough (i.e., if all my packages were unmodified out of a final release version, I couldn't just point to that version and say "there's the source"). For future versions, such as my GrODIN project, I did go further, downloaded all the source packages I thought I might need, bundled them whether I used them or not. Better safe than sorry. They have hosted my releases themselves in the past, dunno if the same holds for GrODIN.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
(I'm sure you're trolling, but it needs to be said...yet again...)
The answer would be: Use whatever license you want. You are NOT obligated to provide online distribution
of the sources you used to make the binary image. You are obligated to provide some sort of access upon
request for three years from the first distibution of the binary image in question. Big fundamental
difference between that and what was presented by everyone so far.
I honestly can't see worrying about this- it's NOT hard to comply with the license terms. Keep a CD set
or DVD set of the source code you used to arrive at the distribution- keep it somewhere safe. When someone
asks for it in writing either via email or snail mail, you tell them it will be $X for the trouble of
burning a copy of the disc sets and that you'd be more than happy to oblige upon reciept of the request
combined with the needed handling fee. Typically, it can be as much as $30-40 for a large source repository.
Some will take you up on it. Some won't.
But it's completely in compliance with the terms of the GPL license grant. You don't have to make it
available online- it's just that it's easier and more convienent for the major distributions to make
it available that way because the infrastructure and bandwidth is already in place for it and it's
actually cheaper in the long run because they're not fielding the manual process described above. But
for it to be cheaper you've got to have it all in place like Fedora Core, Debian, OpenSuSE, Ubuntu,
Slackware, Gentoo, and others already have...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
> "but given that Ubuntu is already obligated to continue to distribute source code for as long as we distribute binaries, it's possible that we could offer that kind of assistance if it would help.'
:-)
So they're willing to take up the requirement of keeping the sources around for at least 3 years longer than they would otherwise have to, just for the benefit of derived distros? That's a pretty nice gesture! I hope they do realize what they're offering to do