[gentoo-dev] Re: GPL and Source code providing
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:16:35 -0400: After all, we're still shipping 1.2 ISO images under /historical, and I can guarantee you that the source code for all of this stuff isn't available from us. We will need to work on compliance ourselves with this, before the FSF comes knocking on our door. Good point. Do note, however, that Gentoo is in better shape here than most, since only the actual binaries on the CD are at issue. That's far less source to worry about than most distributions, with /everything/ as binary, must worry about. We /do/ need to worry about the packages CDs, however. That's a lot of source to manage there, and I'd say much more likely to be at risk than the mostly fairly core (and therefore likely still widely available sources, tho we /will/ need to ensure we make the sources available ourselves) stuff on the LiveCD itself. For that reason, I'd suggest ceasing to distribute the packages CD ISOs 30 days after the next release is available, thereby limiting at least the general source requirements of the packages CD to a narrower timeslot, even if the far more limited source requirements of the LiveCD are allowed to continue somewhat longer, I'd suggest 30 days after the /second/ release. As for the sources themselves, the mirrors should hopefully have the current versions, at least. Whether we keep previous LiveCD (and packages CD if we continue to distribute it) sources on-mirror or on an archive repository setup for the purpose could be debated, tho I'd suggest the archive repository, so the mirrors don't have to carry it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: GPL and Source code providing
Mivz mivz at alpha.spugium.net writes: Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too. How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server just to be able to publish your addition under your own name? This is free as in *freedom*. GPL says that you cannot restrict the freedom of other people. So, ditributing the modified, GPL-ed programs without the access to the source code with said modifications restrict others from seeing how it was achieved and tinkering with the code (i.e. improving it more). Sorry, but there's no free lunch (as in *beer). If you build upon the work of others and it happens that this work is under GPL, then you either must behave (give access to the source code) or write your own version of the software from the ground. And compiling a distro from the source code and creating a binary download, CDs, upgrades, etc. *is* a derivative work IMHO. The same is for single packages that are under GPL. I mean, if someone is able to create its own web page and put a binary download(s) of its work, then how hard is it to comply with the GPL license and just put some more links to the source code? It's like the (old?/new?) Decalogue: You shall not steal. Read this: Richard Stallman, interviewed at GPLv3 Conference in Barcelona, by Sean Daly http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060625001523547 The interesting thing starts at 07:36 of the transcript. Also read this, if you haven't done so before: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html Cheers, Wiktor Wandachowicz (SirYes) PS. Sorry for the noise, but I thought this issue needed clarification. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GPL and Source code providing
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote: I mean, if someone is able to create its own web page and put a binary download(s) of its work, then how hard is it to comply with the GPL license and just put some more links to the source code? It's like the (old?/new?) Decalogue: You shall not steal. But if your modification is on top of the Gentoo system and your build your own Live cd, like Kororaa, do you have to provide all the sources of all the program's on the live cd? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: GPL and Source code providing
Mivz mivz at alpha.spugium.net writes: But if your modification is on top of the Gentoo system and your build your own Live cd, like Kororaa, do you have to provide all the sources of all the program's on the live cd? Well, if you *modify* programs that you want to put on said live cd (like adding your own patches, different from the official ones found in portage) then IMO you should at least give access to the patches. If you aim to create a completely separate distribution, thus using your own repository, web site and portage tree (for example), then it makes perfect sense to provide a full source code as well. But in the case of Gentoo offshot which intends to use existing Gentoo infrastucture (mirrors, sources, etc.) I'd suggest to consult the original copyright (copyleft?) holders, that means Gentoo officials. Just in case. Cheers, Wiktor Wandachowicz PS. I'll stop posting now as IANAL and the above are only my own opinions. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GPL and Source code providing
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:30:27 +0200 Mivz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote: I mean, if someone is able to create its own web page and put a binary download(s) of its work, then how hard is it to comply with the GPL license and just put some more links to the source code? It's like the (old?/new?) Decalogue: You shall not steal. But if your modification is on top of the Gentoo system and your build your own Live cd, like Kororaa, do you have to provide all the sources of all the program's on the live cd? To all the binary files you created, yes. You don't have to do this for binary files copied from a Gentoo Live CD, as in that case you're a third party (like a courier, or the postman) and can can simply refer back to Gentoo. However if you distribute binaries that are different, then you have to distribute the sources sufficient to build the modified binaries to anyone who asks for it (well, anyone to whom you distributed your binaries). I suggest you burn a disc when you build a release containing all the source, include an offer on the your release media (clearly and obviously places) describing how people can request a copy of the source disc from you if they wish. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GPL and Source code providing
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:54:12PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: You don't have to do this for binary files copied from a Gentoo Live CD, as in that case you're a third party (like a courier, or the postman) and can can simply refer back to Gentoo. According to the FSF you need to provide the sources also for things you did not modify (see the link ciaran provided), because you are redistributing those binaries and distribution means you have to provide sources yourself. It is not enough to refer to other parties, because those other parties can take their sources offline and you will still have to provide your users with the sources if/when they want them. You are responsible for providing the sources of any GPL binaries you distribute. Maurice. -- Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org Creator of BiteMe! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kfk4ever.com pgpbKl2hmE7zK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GPL and Source code providing
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:20:00 +0200 Maurice van der Pot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:54:12PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: You don't have to do this for binary files copied from a Gentoo Live CD, as in that case you're a third party (like a courier, or the postman) and can can simply refer back to Gentoo. According to the FSF you need to provide the sources also for things you did not modify (see the link ciaran provided), because you are redistributing those binaries and distribution means you have to provide sources yourself. It is not enough to refer to other parties, because those other parties can take their sources offline and you will still have to provide your users with the sources if/when they want them. You are responsible for providing the sources of any GPL binaries you distribute. Maurice. I was thinking about what they say here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid which implies that if someone receives binaries from a third party, it's the original distributor that has to honour the offer (said offer being distributed/forwarded with the binaries). In particular clause 3c of the license permits non-commercial distribution of binary code without source code provided the offer from the originator accompanies the binaries: except from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
