Re: Providing source for .iso files downloaded using bittorrent
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: What do you think? Um, I think I said the same thing, down to the reference to the GPLV3 clause meant to prevent the problem? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lrh.2.00.1104251324430.11...@oxygen.rahul.net
Providing source for .iso files downloaded using bittorrent
Hi everyone, the request to stop redistributing Debian in Germany sparked an interesting conversation in identi.ca: http://identi.ca/conversation/69498913 In that conversation Bradley Kuhn said: bkuhn @vinzv, Please note: *technically speaking*, !Debian project itself violates !GPlv2 w/ #torrent distribution too! All who use it infringe ©. Richard Fontana does not agree: fontana @bkuhn I think to some degree you are engaging in #FUD on the # bittorrent !GPL issue Asking Bradley for some clarification he said: bkuhn @mem, problem is question of informing #torrent users when source/binary torrents are separate. See !GPLv3 §6(e) various supporting docs. The best thing I was able to find to provide some light into the issue was: mem @bkuhn ah, here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/bittorrent-dd2.pdf/view #torrent #gpl Now, back to the Debian case, Bradley seems to think that providing a method to download the source (e.g. apt-get source) is not enough. If I understand it correctly, he's saying we must do something extra to comply with GPLv2§3: a) provide the source *in* the .iso; b) provide a written offer and all that; or c) show that we have a written offer from upstream. a) is not going to happen, we don't have c) in the general case so b) it is (from his point of view). My interpretation of the whole thing is that in order to comply with the terms of the GPLv2, we should put yet another file, README.GPLv2, in the .iso explaining how to obtain the sources and accompany that with the offer to provide source for three years, etc, etc, etc per GPLv2§3(b). I have to say that I'm still not 100% clear on how the violation is happening, but this was obviously a real concern during the drafting of the GPLv3, since the new version does contain clauses meant to deal with this. If I'm not mistaken our very own MRJ raised the issue during that process. My own concern is that when using Bittorrent, the people downloading the .iso start distributing the software *before* they had a chance to read the license. By redistributing you are already excersicing your rights under the GPLv2, which means you have accepted all the terms and conditions. What do you think? Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110424231141.GA22677@esk
Re: Providing source for .iso files downloaded using bittorrent
Marcelo E. Magallon mmaga...@debian.org wrote: Now, back to the Debian case, Bradley seems to think that providing a method to download the source (e.g. apt-get source) is not enough. If I understand it correctly, he's saying we must do something extra to comply with GPLv2§3: a) provide the source *in* the .iso; b) provide a written offer and all that; or c) show that we have a written offer from upstream. a) is not going to happen, we don't have c) in the general case so b) it is (from his point of view). I do not think that Debian, itself, has any problems. The GPL says 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. Debian distributes both the source and binaries from its worldwide mirrors. Even though it may be technically more difficult to get the source, Debian is still distributing the source from the same place (Debian mirrors). The case for the Bittorrent users, on the other hand, is less clear. Since the users are dependent on the Debian tracker, you could argue that they are merely acting as agents of Debian. Anyone setting up their own tracker would have to distribute both binary and source. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110424.175408.534319940737453550.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Providing source for .iso files downloaded using bittorrent
Marcelo E. Magallon mmaga...@debian.org writes: My interpretation of the whole thing is that in order to comply with the terms of the GPLv2, we should put yet another file, README.GPLv2, in the .iso explaining how to obtain the sources and accompany that with the offer to provide source for three years, etc, etc, etc per GPLv2§3(b). Thanks very much for following that conversation and summarising here. My own concern is that when using Bittorrent, the people downloading the .iso start distributing the software *before* they had a chance to read the license. Oof. That's a good point: the GPL speaks of redistribution / propagation as though it were an instantaneous action, or maybe a “transaction” in programming terms: either complete, or not done at all. But that's simply not how it works. Any download is going to take time, and can be interrupted leaving part of the work downloaded. For a one-way download that doesn't much matter, but peer-to-peer fragmentary sharing exposes the oversimplification. By redistributing you are already excersicing your rights under the GPLv2, which means you have accepted all the terms and conditions. What do you think? You're right to bring it up, but I think the anonymous peer-to-peer distribution method breaks traditional ideas of copying and hence the applicability of copyright just isn't going to be clear in such cases. One possible argument is to apply the intention of the GPLv3 authors retrospectively to the GPLv2 intention: to argue that, though it's not written in the terms, the licensor's intent is to permit “ancillary propagation” (as per GPLv3§9) of a work under GPLv2. That's a pretty weak argument, though. -- \“Members of the general public commonly find copyright rules | `\implausible, and simply disbelieve them.” —Jessica Litman, | _o__) _Digital Copyright_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k4ejnnp3@benfinney.id.au
