Created a distro? You must make *all* the source available.

Post #260,270

6/28/06 1:02:15 PM

[link|http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205|NewsForge]:

Warren Woodford, the founder of the MEPIS distribution, would prefer to be concentrating on polishing his latest release. Instead, he is distracted by an official notice from the Free Software Foundation that, because MEPIS has not previously supplied source code for the packages already available from the distribution it is based on -- once Debian, and now Ubuntu -- it is in violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Woodford intends to comply, but he worries about how this requirement might affect all distributions derived from other distributions -- especially those run by one or two people in their spare time.

The requirement to supply source code is covered by section 3 of the second version of the GPL. Under these sections, the distributor of GPL code is obligated to provide source code "on a medium customarily used for software interchange" for up to three years. In practice, this medium is usually a CD or DVD, or a server from which it can be downloaded. Under section 6 of the GPL, each distributor of the code comes under the obligations specified in section 3. This obligation is specified even more strongly in section 10 of the draft for the third version of the GPL, which specifically states that "downstream users" (those who, like Woodford, adopt the work of another project -- the "upstream distributor" -- for their own use) fall under these obligations.

I guess it makes sense, but it does seem that it could be onerous for small operators who weren't careful. With luck, they'll get in compliance without too much trouble and it won't be a recurring problem. My guess is that if it becomes a problem, then people will work around it by creating tools for a user to build their own customized distribution rather than distributing a customized version.

E.g. Suppose Woodford creates a script that:
1) Downloads the latest Ubuntu.
2) Applies his patches to the kernel, hardware detection, etc.
3) Compiles things as necessary.
4) Applies his customizations via other scripts.

I assume in such a case, any GPL code would only have to be available in source form for the scripts for the download and 2, 3 and 4 (since he wouldn't be distributing Ubuntu, he wouldn't need to make the source available). Would that work?

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #260,301

by drewk

6/28/06 3:48:46 PM

Might be a better idea, too

On the one hand, it satisfies the goal of less duplication.

On the other hand, it makes each downstream distribution as volatile as the sum of all upstream volatility.

On the other other hand, that would make it harder to have a meaningful certification process.

Finally, it would make the installation process harder, which is one area that needs fewer problems, not more. I think as a practical matter major downstream distros are going to have to provide the whole shebang.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #260,326

by inthane-chan

6/28/06 9:29:00 PM

s/other\\ other/gripping

Post #260,557

by ubernostrum

7/2/06 3:14:43 AM

It's amazing, really.

The FSF apparently haven't read their own license. Section 3(c) -- which allows you to pass along the offer of source you received from upstream instead of distributing the source yourself -- seems to cover this case, unless I've completely misread it.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?

Post #260,781

by ben_tilly

7/5/06 3:01:29 PM

Perhaps YOU should re-read it

MEPIS did some commercial distribution of code. Therefore they cannot opt to use section 3(c). They also made changes and recompiled, so again they cannot opt to use section 3(c).

Plus there is no place that actually gives you the full sourcecode to MEPIS. If someone gave me a distribution and then told me 50 places that I could go to find it in pieces, then I'd consider that the spirit if not the letter of the GPL was violated.

Cheers,
Ben

a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing. -- Warren Buffett

Post #260,800

by imric

7/5/06 4:48:08 PM

Aye

I love the distro - but finding all the source for it was a pain. I'll be glad when he fixes it.

Of course, the best part of the distro (HW detection & config) wasn't OSS in the first place.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #260,853

by ubernostrum

7/6/06 12:52:54 AM

Ah. The FUD struck.

So many of the articles on this have been "OMG anyone who distributes Linux at all has to maintain full source trees of everything". Which ain't true.

\r\n\r\n

As for the "spirit" of the GPL, well, I honestly wouldn't be bothered by a distro that just passed along the source offers for anything they were distributing without modification. I don't expect the GPL to impose any undue burden on someone who wants to comply with the ideal of having the source be freely available.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?

Post #260,854

by ben_tilly

7/6/06 2:09:35 AM

What FUD?

You were claiming that MEPIS could just invoke part 3(c) of the GPL. You were wrong. Will you acknowledge the mistake?

I'm also puzzled by your claim that "the FUD struck." Your comments there seem to be directed at lots of people, none of whom are me.

As for the "spirit" of the GPL, the spirit of the GPL is that it is up to the distributer to make it as easy as possible for the recipient to get source. The only concession that is made to make this obligation easier on the distributer only applies if your distribution is non-commercial and you are distributing binaries that that you got elsewhere with an offer of source code.

In fact the FSF tries to interpret this part of the GPL even less generously than I do. Their FAQ would have you believe that you have to be willing to ship source code on physical media. Every other interpretation that I've seen (including mine) is that it is sufficient to just throw the code up on an FTP site. And, of course, maintaining an FTP site really isn't a very onerous task.

Cheers,
Ben

a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing. -- Warren Buffett

Welcome to IWETHEY!