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 wouldn't say it's FUD: the GPL *does* have this requirement, that you either distribute source or provide a written offer to distribute source.
They should just distribute the source. It isn't hard, is it?
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.*
Well, they can accompany the binaries with a written offer to deliver the source code on request. They can then charge whatever it costs them to provide it (within reasonable limits I presume).
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
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
Debian, Gentoo, Red Hat, Slackware...all of which package nmap, which was featured in Matrix: Reloaded with Keanu Reeves.
(this part courtesy of oracleofbacon.org)
Keanu Reeves was in Speed (1994/I) with Beau Starr
Beau Starr was in Where the Truth Lies (2005) with Kevin Bacon.
So there you have it. All those original distros have at most a Bacon number of 3.
Is this what you're looking for? Or this?
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Ubuntu isn't the problem. Its derivatives of Ubuntu who aren't distributing the source who are. And all they have to do is *gasp* distribute the source.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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
Not entirely accurate. SuSE is derived from Slackware, for example. The fork was originally in the mid-1990s, but as of the early 2000s they still had the same disk set structure.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
> "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.
(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
"Not entirely accurate." ... Isn't that synonymous with "found on the internet"? ;-)
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.