Eeesh! Joining this list has been both uncomfortable and educational at the same time...is everyone greeted with such 'hospitality'?...lol
OK, so what about this: AV Linux goes GPL(3) and I issue a disclaimer statement declaring which EXACT packages are 'non-free' but come bundled with the ISO and clearly state that the declared non-free packages must be removed in order to redistribute AV Linux... Will this appease the powers that be? In all seriousness thanks for the feedback, -GLEN >> Well I'm not a lawyer either so we have something in common! > > Hi Glen and the others, > > likewise, I'll join the club of non-lawyers discussing legal issues ;-) > > Am 05.10.2011 00:41, schrieb [email protected]: >> I've been distributing AV Linux like this since 2007 and .... > >> ... but I was under the impression that any derived work could be >> licensed >> outside of the GPL provided the source code of the derived work was made >> available upon request. > > This impression is simply wrong. You just had the luck that no one sued > you. > > This matter isn't difficult. > Any confusion boils down to being precise with the term "derived work". > > > If you want to license a "derived work" *outside* the GPL, then you need > to > negotiate with *each* contributor to the GPLed work to get you an > *separate* > usage agreement for his/her code *independent* of that code being > published > also under the GPL. > > If you can't do that, the GPL as it stands is crisp and clear. > *You* use GPLed content to build your derived work. > This implies that *you* comply to the GPL beforehand. > And the GPL dictates that every derived work has to be > *licensed again under the GPL*. End of the discussion. > > > This is what often is referred to as the "infectious" or "viral" property > of the GPL. Other licenses (e.g. the Apache License) are deliberately > different and do not employ this strict ruling. > >> The 'source code' is the ISO image... > > Sorry, no. > Source code is source code is source code. This isn't a matter for > interpretation. Source code is an textual or similarly editable > representation from which you can re-create your whole delivery. > > There is an absolutely simple criterion: What everyone can rebuild > from the accessible source code, needs to be equivalent to what > you distribute in binary form (including all your modifications). > > Btw: that exactly was the reason why GPL doesn't play well for > distributing media content. That's one of the reasons, why > we have the CreativeCommons licenses. > > >> .... and of course the GPL content of Debian has it's source code freely >> available as well. Regardless the icluded closed source content falls >> outside >> of the GPL and there is no law forbidding me to distribute it on an ISO >> of my >> making providing I have the permission of the developers which I do. > > What you do here is compiling several products into a distribution. > That is another matter altogether. Indeed you're free to do so. The key > distinguishing point is if you just ship independent pieces together, > as opposed to combining GPLed and non-GPLed code into a new product. > > If you do the latter, the GPL rulez! But you're always free to do the > former (just shipping together). Just in that case you need to make clear > to your users that they get content with two different licenses, and, > because you're distributing GPLed content as part of your distribution, > *you* need to make the source code for that GPLed content available. > > It doesn't suffice that you state that everyone interested can get the > source code from "somewhere". *You* need to provide it. The GPL-2 even > contains some rules on how, and how much you're allowed to charge for > e.g. mailing an CD with source code to a user requesting that from you. > > The GPL-2 is very outdated in that respect, indeed. If I recall correct, > only the GPL-3 contains a ruling that it is sufficient to publish an > URL to a net server holding the full and exact source code, and that > you're not bound to ship floppies to some bozo in Mongolia where there > is no internet access. Nevertheless, even with the GPL-3, you need to > assure that that net server is reasonably accessible. > > To elaborate on that point: Debian doesn't keep an archive of superseded > source code versions. If you e.g. base your code modifications on some > library in Debian/oldstable, some years ahead that basic code won't > be accessible from Debian anymore. If you hit an evil spirited lawyer, > you can get a lot of trouble consequently. > > > Please understand me right. I am all sympathetic with what you do! > Just, if there are some values at stake, commercially, I can only > recommend to check the legal issues with a real lawyer and to > make sure you're in the safe zone. > > Keep the good work up! > Cheers, > Hermann Vosseler > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Cinelerra mailing list > [email protected] > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
