On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target > system that is Debian matter?
Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the GPL for any instance where we're distributing .debs to users of debian systems. However, note that we're working on generalizing debian -- there's stuff like LSB, and various sorts of ports going on that potentially broadens the audience for our packages. > Are you, perchance, advocating we keep several (potentially several > thousand) copies of the GPL on every Debian machine out there on the > off chance that the end user (despite pointers in the copyright file) > is unable to get a copy of the GPL? Would it really matter, given > this end users isolation from the network? What, you're worried about a measly 18M? That's peanuts on a machine with several thousand GPLed packages installed. [Ok, maybe that's not very funny...] Anyways, optimization should come after correctness, not before. On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:19:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > Debian advertises a freely redistributable system, with no special need > > to read copyrights before redistributing all or part of it. On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:24:35PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > Not exactly. If I upload /bin/ls from my system to a BBS without > providing source, I am violating the GPL. If I start distributing > GPL'd .debs without source (whether or not the .debs have a copy of > the GPL), I am violating the GPL. Different issue. The GPL appears to claim that you must distribute a copy of the license with the binaries, even when you ship the source separately. > > If we now claim that our .debs are not redistributable without first > > reading the copyright file, we should post this new claim prominently > > (for example, as part of our home page). > > Well, perhaps we *should* point out that a *lot* of the software we > provide *cannot* be redistributed *unless* you also provide the > source. That is, after all, the terms of the GPL, and it clearly > doesn't match what you seem to think. Good idea. [There's a good chance we already do this, but I've not taken time to look.] On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:55:25PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > The doctrine you're citing could have been that the moon was made > of green cheese for all of the citation you'd done in the past. > Furthermore, there is still 17USC507b: The FSF may be denied relief > at all in the case of Debian. It hardly seems right that where a > statutory limit has been reached, you are prevented relief against > others. Basically, Debian is now "grandfathered in" because of a > snafu: EvilCorp is not. Go bother EvilCorp. That only works if we stopped distributing such things at least three years ago. -- Raul
