[gentoo-dev] Re: [experiment] Sunrise try 2
Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 24 June 2006 18:54, Edward Catmur wrote: >> * Security (from malicious contributors): Glad to see layman will only >> track the reviewed/ tree; still, anyone who checks out the sunrise/ tree >> (and has it in PORTDIR_OVERLAY) is vulnerable. >> >> - Remove from the examples any suggestion that one should check out the >> whole tree when contributing. Point out that one should not svn up >> sunrise/ as part of updating Portage. > > valid point i think The guide has been edited to inform users that they should *not* use the sunrise/ tree for any reason other than committing. Now, in the HowToCommit guide, near the instructions for checking out the sunrise/ tree, it clearly states that you should not set it as your PORTDIR_OVERLAY, but use the reviewed/ instead. > > ive never admined svn repos before, but would it be possible to shut off anon > access to the non-reviewed tree ? i think that would cover this issue as > people who get bit by bugs in the non-reviewed tree would (and should) be > able to just go in and fix it themselves :) As far as I understand, not allowing anonymous users to check out the sunrise/ directory *is* going to be implemented in the future, but you should get a second word from genstef or jokey on that as I'm not completely sure. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [experiment] Sunrise try 2
On Sunday 25 June 2006 01:39, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 24 June 2006 18:54, Edward Catmur wrote: > > * Security (from malicious contributors): Glad to see layman will only > > track the reviewed/ tree; still, anyone who checks out the sunrise/ tree > > (and has it in PORTDIR_OVERLAY) is vulnerable. > > > > - Remove from the examples any suggestion that one should check out the > > whole tree when contributing. Point out that one should not svn up > > sunrise/ as part of updating Portage. > > valid point i think > > ive never admined svn repos before, but would it be possible to shut off > anon access to the non-reviewed tree ? i think that would cover this issue > as people who get bit by bugs in the non-reviewed tree would (and should) > be able to just go in and fix it themselves :) after looking at some acl stuff i'm 99% sure this can be done ... so can we get this setup ? in fact, gentoo-wiki.com has a section on doing apache2/svn/dav/acls -mike pgptAfQN4utt3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs to treecleaners
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:54:02 +0200 > Raphael Marichez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> IMHO this seems a good idea. The portage tree is growing every week, >> every month, and it doesn't really suit for the very little systems >> (embedded linux) nowadays. Furthermore, with the old 2.0-portage, the >> syncing and caching had become really long. > > If you want to sync just part of the tree, look into setting '--exclude' > or '--exclude-from' options via PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS in make.conf. > See rsync(1) and make.conf(5). Never tried it myself, but it should > work. > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-2551222.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 21:48 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > On Wednesday 28 June 2006 17:42, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > >> This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is > >> the patches. > > Not really, no. As Ciaran already said, FSF seems not to think this way and > > this is the most important thing on that article. Apparently, I was mistaken on how this works. Anyway, who is going to re-write our mirroring scripts so that we aren't stripping stuff anymore? 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. Good examples of this are packages that no longer merge due to missing distfiles when using a release's portage snapshot instead of a current tree. This happens every release, so I know that we aren't keeping all of this stuff. We will need to work on compliance ourselves with this, before the FSF comes knocking on our door. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Wednesday 28 June 2006 17:42, Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is >> the patches. > Not really, no. As Ciaran already said, FSF seems not to think this way and > this is the most important thing on that article. > Yawn, the misguided article is due the Mephis distributor having a long track of misbehavior and depicting himself as a victim... As gpl2 you should provide a written offer for the source and hand them over upon request using any machine readable medium. my 2 (fake) eurocents lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: GPL and Source code providing
Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:30:27 +0200: > 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? IANAL but from what I've read (and my read of the GPL v2 anyway), the simplest way to think of it is that if you distribute binaries, you must be able to provide source for them. If you aren't providing the binaries, you don't have to worry about source. That means with a LiveCD, presumably including at least a significant handful of binaries, you'll have to provide source for at least those binaries, not just what you may have modified. (This is in agreement with the FSF and what Ciaran says below, tho it conflicts with Chris G's statement on the subject.) The reason you have to provide source for other than your own work is so that the end-user is guaranteed his four freedoms rights to use, examine, modify, and distribute the programs you provided, even if /your/ upstream goes away. IOW, you wouldn't be released from the responsibility of providing sources just because Gentoo disappeared, so to ensure that you can do so, you must make your own arrangements to provide the sources for any GPLed binaries you distributed. The section of the GPL (v2) that deals with this section 3 (section 6 of the GPL v3 draft, which is similar but specifies in a bit more detail the responsibilities of downstream redistributors). There are three clauses, any of which will fulfill your obligations as a distributor under the GPL: 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.) A couple things to note about those clauses: 1) Clause B's 3-year minimum doesn't apply to clause A. Many downstream distributors prefer it for this reason -- their obligation to provide source for any particular version disappears when they quit distributing the binaries created from it, no having to keep it around for three more years. 2) Clause C depends on your upstream using clause B. Since most major distributions now use clause A, and are thus not subject to the three-year minimum, it's quite possible their sources will no longer be available for the period you are redistributing. (This is certainly true for Gentoo, AFAIK, where the source mirrors aren't likely to be carrying the sources much past the point when the ebuild is no longer in the Gentoo tree. Also note that to provide proper sources for a Gentoo based binary, you'd have to provide any Gentoo patches as well, so simply relying on the sources mirrors won't suffice!) That said, it's not really the big deal that it's being made out to be, for a couple reasons: 1) The BIG reason -- The GPL is based and draws its authority from copyright law. End users have no way to enforce their demands for source, no matter /what/ the GPL says -- ONLY the holders of the copyrights on the original programs do. If all you do is make a couple copies for your friends and relatives (Grandma), and they don't care about sources, no problem! Even if you distribute publicly, unless a copyright holder demands that you honor the GPL, there isn't much anyone else can do. It's the copyright holder's program, not the end user's program. Do note however that in many cases, the kernel being a huge example, there may be many copyright holders, any of which can demand action. The reason the current story is making news is that apparently, the Mepis author has a history of not being very forthcoming with sources where the GPL requires they be available, and more importantly, the FSF, owner of the copyrights of much of the core GNU/Linux software (anything with GNU in the name, AFAIK, so the GNU Coreutils and GCC aka GNU Compiler Collection, among ot
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 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] GPL and Source code providing
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:55:47 -0500 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Perhaps you should take another English class before you make a bigger | fool out of yourself than you just did. I don't think Gentoo developers should be making those kinds of comments towards users, no matter how much they deserve it. After all, you're supposed to be encouraging contributions, aren't you? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: GPL and Source code providing
Mivz 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] GPL and Source code providing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mivz wrote: > That other people don't have a 9 line counting footer and are not > official Gentoo developers does not say they are so much different from > you or stupid. > You called me selfish, childish and a M$ lover... > Well... I'm a squatter, I try to live anarchistic and I do not prejudge > people. And if I disagree... I certainly do not say things that go > straight against the subject in discussion and break the social Gentoo > rules on offending other people. > I think you ow me a apology. > > Mivz Heh, You want an apology from me yet you attack my signature? My previous email stated that what you were attempting to do was childish and selfish, not that you yourself were either childish or selfish. Perhaps you should take another English class before you make a bigger fool out of yourself than you just did. - -- === Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations Gentoo Recruitment Lead Gentoo Infrastructure GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 === -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRKK0kIBrouQZ9K4FAQIiTAP9E38d0uBF7ybkvwl4UMYYSqVFbtRJoXFK MVh2iiMEP7Ftky/L6DqF76AGKA6v/sRoFJEkAFxaSoD8w00IRMKjCLPR1qVqhhOV mvJG32k8VVpCUfAosS3HhzdurS5YjU18DjD/6CpPXZ448OvUDtvDps5TM1FKgBiS PGITgBa2OuI= =3Cze -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 17:42, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is > the patches. Not really, no. As Ciaran already said, FSF seems not to think this way and this is the most important thing on that article. But there's a simple way of course to handle the whole stuff, and is to just send the changes upstream. This is anyway a good idea, btw. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgptlTY6QbrmT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
Mivz wrote: > > You called me selfish, childish Whoever complains about the distribution rules from GPL after using GPL'd source/stuff is... > and a M$ lover... Never said. > Well... I'm a squatter, I try to live anarchistic and I do not prejudge > people. And if I disagree... I certainly do not say things that go > straight against the subject in discussion and break the social Gentoo > rules on offending other people. If you are feeling offended then you are either breaching the GPL or are thinking you are. > I think you owe me a apology. Or maybe you need better explanations since I think you are misunderstanding. lu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
Mike Doty wrote: > Then you miss the entire point of GPL. You "own" your code, but if you > derive it from something that is GPL, then you must comply with the GPL. > The GPL exists to protect the author from what you're trying to do. > Your statement also goes against the whole concept of free software. > you've learned and benefited from all of our work, yet you don't want to > contribute? It's very selfish and childish. > > If you truly feel that way, I'd recommend using something propriatory > like microsoft, where you can license it any way you want. > > -- > === > Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org > Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead > Gentoo Developer Relations > Gentoo Recruitment Lead > Gentoo Infrastructure > GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 > === That other people don't have a 9 line counting footer and are not official Gentoo developers does not say they are so much different from you or stupid. You called me selfish, childish and a M$ lover... Well... I'm a squatter, I try to live anarchistic and I do not prejudge people. And if I disagree... I certainly do not say things that go straight against the subject in discussion and break the social Gentoo rules on offending other people. I think you ow me a apology. Mivz -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 17:18 +0200, Mivz wrote: >> Mike Doty wrote: >>> Mivz wrote: > 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? > >>> Very free. There are many project sites that will host your content if >>> you have it under a GPL or similar license. Similarly, as long as you >>> provide the source, you satisfy the main point of GPL. Thousands of >>> projects do exactly this without any input from a lawyer. >>> >> But then it's still 'free beer', and not 'freedom'. I still can not >> write a patch and make a cd with the patch applied to give to my mum and >> my friends, without the risk of my intelligence being stolen and abused. >> Or I have to go through the hassle of finding a provider, which of >> course needs attention too. > > This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is > the patches. If you, for example, made a Gentoo-based distribution, and > made changes to 3 packages, you would only need provide the source for > those three packages. At most, providing a link to the upstream (us) > packages/code/etc for everything else would be required. Also, you are > only required to provide source to the people you provide binaries to, > and you're only required to do so on request. Meaning that if you made > a CD and only gave it to your mom, you don't need a server. You just > need to burn her a CD of source if she asked. It really is that simple. > The only way you need a server is if you're going about distributing it > to the world, and you made a ton of changes. Remember, the GPL just > says that you have to provide the code. Pointing someone to where they > can get it *is* providing it, so long as any patches/changes you've made > are also available under some means. > Tank you :) Now it all makes sens. Cause if you publish a live cd to a large audience, you should be able to publish the rest also. Then it's only a couple of GB on disk. If you make just a few for friends, a text file with your email is enough. Now I see how nice the GPL adopts to the size of your plans and audience. And if it grows, it is also reasonable to provide a Gentoo mirror, because it probably would also use the Gentoo network for distribution of the base files. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:42:47 -0400 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide | is the patches. Careful with that. The GNU people say otherwise. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
Mike Doty wrote: > Mivz wrote: >>> Mike Doty wrote: Mivz wrote: >> 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? >> Very free. There are many project sites that will host your content if you have it under a GPL or similar license. Similarly, as long as you provide the source, you satisfy the main point of GPL. Thousands of projects do exactly this without any input from a lawyer. >>> But then it's still 'free beer', and not 'freedom'. I still can not >>> write a patch and make a cd with the patch applied to give to my mum and >>> my friends, without the risk of my intelligence being stolen and abused. >>> Or I have to go through the hassle of finding a provider, which of >>> course needs attention too. >>> >>> > Then you miss the entire point of GPL. You "own" your code, but if you > derive it from something that is GPL, then you must comply with the GPL. > The GPL exists to protect the author from what you're trying to do. > Your statement also goes against the whole concept of free software. > you've learned and benefited from all of our work, yet you don't want to > contribute? It's very selfish and childish. With stolen or abuse I do not mean just used. I mean stolen and abused as you would consider GPL licensed software stolen or abused. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 17:18 +0200, Mivz wrote: > Mike Doty wrote: > > Mivz wrote: > >>> 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? > >>> > > Very free. There are many project sites that will host your content if > > you have it under a GPL or similar license. Similarly, as long as you > > provide the source, you satisfy the main point of GPL. Thousands of > > projects do exactly this without any input from a lawyer. > > > > But then it's still 'free beer', and not 'freedom'. I still can not > write a patch and make a cd with the patch applied to give to my mum and > my friends, without the risk of my intelligence being stolen and abused. > Or I have to go through the hassle of finding a provider, which of > course needs attention too. This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is the patches. If you, for example, made a Gentoo-based distribution, and made changes to 3 packages, you would only need provide the source for those three packages. At most, providing a link to the upstream (us) packages/code/etc for everything else would be required. Also, you are only required to provide source to the people you provide binaries to, and you're only required to do so on request. Meaning that if you made a CD and only gave it to your mom, you don't need a server. You just need to burn her a CD of source if she asked. It really is that simple. The only way you need a server is if you're going about distributing it to the world, and you made a ton of changes. Remember, the GPL just says that you have to provide the code. Pointing someone to where they can get it *is* providing it, so long as any patches/changes you've made are also available under some means. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mivz wrote: > Mike Doty wrote: >> Mivz wrote: 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? >> Very free. There are many project sites that will host your content if >> you have it under a GPL or similar license. Similarly, as long as you >> provide the source, you satisfy the main point of GPL. Thousands of >> projects do exactly this without any input from a lawyer. >> > > But then it's still 'free beer', and not 'freedom'. I still can not > write a patch and make a cd with the patch applied to give to my mum and > my friends, without the risk of my intelligence being stolen and abused. > Or I have to go through the hassle of finding a provider, which of > course needs attention too. > > Then you miss the entire point of GPL. You "own" your code, but if you derive it from something that is GPL, then you must comply with the GPL. The GPL exists to protect the author from what you're trying to do. Your statement also goes against the whole concept of free software. you've learned and benefited from all of our work, yet you don't want to contribute? It's very selfish and childish. If you truly feel that way, I'd recommend using something propriatory like microsoft, where you can license it any way you want. - -- === Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations Gentoo Recruitment Lead Gentoo Infrastructure GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 === -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRKKhcIBrouQZ9K4FAQKcggP/aR8HNcIjBZ33rWX5x9X+AFUJ9md1x1VI Z8XPhloE1DOwC+OGfod0BbyJMepjtUXGISILseRpgVl63VNyT1Hznlk90Am+YFxR ooGiZzsJI1ghZLWy8gBHEC0O6iCA72TnstVx8YceUiK58iOkBwwd9MayGGftMblc 52Sdikeg5NE= =Qq6b -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
Mike Doty wrote: > Mivz wrote: >>> 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? >>> > Very free. There are many project sites that will host your content if > you have it under a GPL or similar license. Similarly, as long as you > provide the source, you satisfy the main point of GPL. Thousands of > projects do exactly this without any input from a lawyer. > But then it's still 'free beer', and not 'freedom'. I still can not write a patch and make a cd with the patch applied to give to my mum and my friends, without the risk of my intelligence being stolen and abused. Or I have to go through the hassle of finding a provider, which of course needs attention too. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: GPL and Source code providing
Mivz 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
[gentoo-dev] Bugday announcement
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey everybody. Bugday is moving closer, and we would like to see you on Saturday 1. of July. We are celebrating that it once again is the first saturday of the month. We will be serving virtual cookies to everybody who shows up :-) So please, show up in #gentoo-bugs on irc.freenode.net , we will be starting at 00:00 and ending at 23:59 ca. The new bugday website isn't online yet, due to a few techincal problems that we are working on sorting out :-) Hope to see you all Bjarke (AKA. GurliGebis) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEopoBO+Ewtpi9rLERAk2+AJ9yP3onCkFwxbhUgdYEJBFEMpGVGQCfZkg0 a/ohZ7y4mSGn56u7EVB3rBM= =t2/n -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
On 6/28/06, Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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? With the GPL v2, you don't need a server at all. You're perfectly entitled to distribute the code on DVD (for example), for a fee. You don't have to keep the source online at all. If the GPL v3 does require you to keep the source online, that'd be a shame. Relying on third parties (such as SourceForge, or Berlios) to host your source online is risky ... if they disappear, *you* are still liable to keep your source code online (presumably the three year rule still applies). If the third party disappears, taking older versions of the code with it, what then for you? Technically, you're in violation. The idea that everyone has cheap hosting available to them is sadly an incomplete view of the world :( Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 16:28, Mivz wrote: > 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? There is nothing preventing you from just publishing a patch with your name. The problem arises only if you distribute a binary without either source or an offer to provide source on request... -- Bo Andresen pgpDZsYJU0GvH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 04:28:42PM +0200, Mivz wrote: > 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? *plonk* -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mivz wrote: > 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? > Very free. There are many project sites that will host your content if you have it under a GPL or similar license. Similarly, as long as you provide the source, you satisfy the main point of GPL. Thousands of projects do exactly this without any input from a lawyer. - -- === Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations Gentoo Recruitment Lead Gentoo Infrastructure GPG: 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 === -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRKKWEIBrouQZ9K4FAQJD9gP+LyFCH+xz1ohPfazJ+rz/yy2iI4BgUDbQ K9rjXGZyPz74619shqRASWYe6q97EyUSwmZqlOeQdZv9mp+WQFSPlWEO3CaPbnW+ fQg4lVV3Lrjo5jST9zVpjXCtS4ZMlEQG4LSGeN3wBSrDF2wLUcMA7IWDtkBHBk7V SJ+ly8TamhQ= =nRRK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:21:45 +0200 > Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a >> none Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects >> which is licensed under de GPL-2? > > If your project is licensed under the GPL-2, you have to honour the > provisions of that license. You can't license something under the GPL > and not provide the source. > > If you're distributing binary packages, you need to distribute also the > source code that went to make up those binary packages (i.e. your > changes/additions and also both upstream sources). > > If you're only distributing source code (e.g. ebuild scripts, patch > files) then there's nothing further you need to do. > >> Would that mean that, if u write software using the portage system, >> that every package that is used by one of your own should be >> available from a server of your own? > > You need to provide the source for all binaries you distribute. > >> If, the developer should also provide it's own file server with all >> those packages, this would cause that every developer that wanted to >> make a overlay should be a Gentoo file mirror? > > Only if they distribute binaries, in which case source should be > provided sufficient to build those binaries. > >> Do my senses run wilde? Your just my imagination? >> Do I understand this right? > > If you're not sure whether something you do is compliant with the > relevant licenses, talk to an appropriate lawyer. > Tanks for the clear explanation. I get the point, I have to distribute only my own sources for the overlay. But when I build a custom Live cd or Stage 3 installation, I have to provide those packages from source also or provide a Gentoo mirror. (which contains those) And I have to look for a lawyer to be sure I do everything right. 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? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:21:45 +0200 Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a > none Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects > which is licensed under de GPL-2? If your project is licensed under the GPL-2, you have to honour the provisions of that license. You can't license something under the GPL and not provide the source. If you're distributing binary packages, you need to distribute also the source code that went to make up those binary packages (i.e. your changes/additions and also both upstream sources). If you're only distributing source code (e.g. ebuild scripts, patch files) then there's nothing further you need to do. > Would that mean that, if u write software using the portage system, > that every package that is used by one of your own should be > available from a server of your own? You need to provide the source for all binaries you distribute. > If, the developer should also provide it's own file server with all > those packages, this would cause that every developer that wanted to > make a overlay should be a Gentoo file mirror? Only if they distribute binaries, in which case source should be provided sufficient to build those binaries. > Do my senses run wilde? Your just my imagination? > Do I understand this right? If you're not sure whether something you do is compliant with the relevant licenses, talk to an appropriate lawyer. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 12:47, Mivz wrote: > So that would not be when a stage 3 install cd for the Overlay tree is > published? Because that cd contains binary precomplied packages. Well, IANAL and as Stuart said the last word is up to trustees, but from my understanding, as long as the overlay contains only ebuilds, it has to be treated as a source-only repository. In the moment you release a stage or a CD out of that overlay, you have to comply to GPL for the ebuilds, which means that the overlay has to be available, and for the GPL software released in the stage/CD. The main difference that I can see from Debian (and based distributions) is that their packages are built out of the original sources (that might and might not be GPL) and their debian/ directory (that is GPL). As I said, IANAL and I'm speaking only for myself not for anyone else. I only try to apply some logic to the text of GNU's GPL... although seems like logic is overestimated with some people as we now see, unfortunately. If we have to resort to lawyers just to get a distro going, I think there's something entirely wrong with what the free software is today. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpKFtletHiKf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Wednesday 28 June 2006 11:21, Mivz wrote: >> Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none >> Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects which is >> licensed under de GPL-2? Because that is a derived distro form Gentoo >> right? > The problem there is with binary packages. The problem does come down to, > then, just GRP and other release methods, like solar's tinderbox and my > Gentoo/Alt stages. For the rest, Gentoo uses sources, not binary packages. > So that would not be when a stage 3 install cd for the Overlay tree is published? Because that cd contains binary precomplied packages. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
Hi, On 6/28/06, Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, I have just read the following story, which scared me a bit: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150 Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects which is licensed under de GPL-2? Because that is a derived distro form Gentoo right? Would that mean that, if u write software using the portage system, that every package that is used by one of your own should be available from a server of your own? If, the developer should also provide it's own file server with all those packages, this would cause that every developer that wanted to make a overlay should be a Gentoo file mirror? Do my senses run wilde? Your just my imagination? Do I understand this right? Mivz Questions on how the law affects Gentoo are best put to the Gentoo Trustees, who have access to our lawyers. They're the only people who should be commenting on legal stuff like this. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 11:21, Mivz wrote: > Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none > Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects which is > licensed under de GPL-2? Because that is a derived distro form Gentoo > right? The problem there is with binary packages. The problem does come down to, then, just GRP and other release methods, like solar's tinderbox and my Gentoo/Alt stages. For the rest, Gentoo uses sources, not binary packages. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpjxPX0tzd53.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] GPL and Source code providing
Hello, I have just read the following story, which scared me a bit: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150 Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects which is licensed under de GPL-2? Because that is a derived distro form Gentoo right? Would that mean that, if u write software using the portage system, that every package that is used by one of your own should be available from a server of your own? If, the developer should also provide it's own file server with all those packages, this would cause that every developer that wanted to make a overlay should be a Gentoo file mirror? Do my senses run wilde? Your just my imagination? Do I understand this right? Mivz -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
