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.
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).
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.*
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
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
(1) They don't have to put the source literally in the same package as the binary. They can do what Debian does -- offer a source package and a binary package, and leave it up to the user to decide which to download (or both, of course).
(2) It's really too bad that they're cash-strapped, don't have time to deal with the problem, etc. etc. They are using the copywrited work of others and have a legal obligation to comply with the licenses under which that work is distributed. If they can't do that, they should work with software that's written under a license that doesn't have such requirements.
This isn't "a bunch of FUD from a small group of people trying to make things difficult for small time distros." This is a bunch of developers distributing copywrited work without bothering to investigate their legal obligations. The FSF isn't trying to shut these people down; it isn't asking for damages (to which it may be entitled); it is trying to make sure that these developers, who failed to do their homework, respect the rights of the people who's work they are using.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --Dan Kaminsky
It was my understanding that Red Hat's problem with CentOS was because the Red Hat trademarks weren't completely scrubbed -- there were Red Hat trademarks and logos left in the distributed code and the CentOS web site was liberal in it's use of the Red Hat name and logos. The Red Hat letter was specific: "While Red Hat permits others to redistribute the software that constitutes Red Hat Linux, Red Hat does not authorize any person to use the RED HAT marks in association with such redistribution in any fashion, except by express agreement". I don't think that Red Hat was harrassing CentOS. Other Red Hat Enterprise clones are not receiving letters from Red Hat.
The White Box Linux website states that it is derived from Red Hat and it appears that Red Hat is cool with that. The White Box Linus website says: This product is derived from the Free/Open Source Software made available by Red Hat, Inc but IS NOT produced, maintained or supported by Red Hat. Specifically, this product is forked from the source code for Red Hat's _Red Hat Enterprise Linux_ products under the terms and conditions of its EULA.
The Scientific Linux (SL) web site is a bit more terse and avoids the use of the Red Hat name: "The base SL distribution is basically Enterprise Linux, recompiled from source."