John Dong wrote:
Well, again, sources are exactly the same as in Dapper, so that'll lessen the burden...It will not lessen it, depending on dapper sources management it will increase the burden. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCSourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites suggests that references to dapper sources are enough, but it will be neccessary to remove backports binaries at the same time the original dapper sources are removed or to retain dapper sources as long as backports are available. If my understanding is correct, the dapper packages are likely to be around for less time than the backports, as packports either lag dapper slightly or miss some dapper upgrades altogether. Thus an extra admin burden is involved, in synchronizing dapper sources with hoary backports.
The 3 year clause is actually worse than many think, it applies to mail order requests for the source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistributeWithSourceOnInternet shows that the 3 year clause of section 3 of the GPL cannot be satisfied with mere internet access to source. Whether or not it is "enforced" is irrellevant, it's a matter of copyright law. For GPL packages, nothing apart from the GPL gives right to distribute GPL works or derivative works. If the license is not followed, the works cannot be legally distributed, it may just be the FSF or copyright holding developers that come knocking instead of the RIAA. You are right, how can someone enforce the 3 year clause 2 years after the binary was pulled and the source has long gone? A question that may be asked is: Is a reasonable effort being made to comply with the requirements of the GPL? Unless steps are taken to archive sources such that they can be supplied by mail order, the answer to such a question would be "no steps are taken to reasonably comply" which indicates very bad faith. For example, (http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/f/firefox/), the earlier (1-2 month old) ubuntu builds of 1.4.99+1.5rc3 have already been removed from the repository. This makes it knowingly hard to rely on that archive to provide older sources. The only low-admin way to comply with the GPL is to provide sources at the same point of distribution as the binaries; this permits the sources to be pulled as soon as the binaries are pulled, it may also duplicate sources between dapper and backports, but thats a small downside for having no other overheads. It also removes the need to fulfil the 3 year mail order clause, which though unyielding, is burdensome and not appropriate. I'll even pay for the disk to stick in the server. The GPL is clear and the GPL faq is clearer and after much reading and multiple question and answer sessions with the FSF I am convinced that source-with-binary is the only sensible method for small organisations with online distribution to comply with the GPL. Its most attractive feature is that it limits the duration of liability to the time during which the organisation engages in distribution. Other features are low procedural overhead which can easily be automated, and less troublesome correspondance from users who want the source (which may be impossible to fulfil). Sam
|
-- ubuntu-backports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
