Glen, Please don't feel you're under any pressure, or attack. GPL issues are far from being clear to everybody.
I'd just like to add that I have doubts you can re-license the GPL components (which are essentially Debian, so GPL v2), into GPL v3. Can anybody confirm this? Nicola > Subject: Re: [CinCV] AV Linux and it's 'non-GPL' license > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:29:33 -0700 > > 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
