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.
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...
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.
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
> "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.
(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