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.

Comments

I see this mostly as a non-issue

[realcoolguy425]

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.

This exemplifies why Ubuntu is taking over

[smilindog2000]

Just compare.

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 ;-) ... No ubuntu.us ever existed, and if it did, it would not get subverted.
- 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!

Re:Tree of distributions

[whitehatlurker]

I did some extra digging and found the original blog about this. Sorry I didn't include that, but I couldn't remember exactly where I found it.

"Not entirely accurate." ... Isn't that synonymous with "found on the internet"? ;-)

Re:What?

[CastrTroy]

Which is oh so true. I think that most projects would be better served trying to maintain and produce application packages that could be run on other distros. If you're only going to edit 3% of the code, then why are you distributing an entire distro? Shouldn't you just be distributing packages that run on the distro that you're working off of?