Ubuntu Open to Aiding Derivative Distributions 78
lisah writes "Bruce Byfield wrote recently of a GPL requirement that may have unintended consequences for derivative distributions. Ubuntu's technical leader Matt Zimmerman responded with the suggestion that the folks at Ubuntu might be able to assist. From the article: 'It's less clear to me whether a legal agreement with the upstream distributor could satisfy this requirement," Zimmerman says, talking about the obligation to provide source code for everything that a distro ships, "but given that Ubuntu is already obligated to continue to distribute source code for as long as we distribute binaries, it's possible that we could offer that kind of assistance if it would help.'" Newsforge is also owned by OSTG.
I see this mostly as a non-issue (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue (Score:3, Informative)
They should just distribute the source. It isn't hard, is it?
Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue (Score:2)
Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
(2) It's really too bad that they're cash-strapped, don't have time to deal with the problem, etc. etc. They are using the copywrited work of others and have a legal obligation to comply with the licenses under which that work is distributed. If they can't do that, they should work with software that's written under a license that doesn't have such requirements.
This isn't "a bunch of FUD from a small group of people trying to make things difficult for small time distros." This is a bunch of developers distributing copywrited work without bothering to investigate their legal obligations. The FSF isn't trying to shut these people down; it isn't asking for damages (to which it may be entitled); it is trying to make sure that these developers, who failed to do their homework, respect the rights of the people who's work they are using.
Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue (Score:1, Informative)
Copyrighted. They have rights to the work, they're not writing it on a piece of paper.
Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue (Score:2)
Indeed. Thanks for the correction.
Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue (Score:2)
They should just distribute the source. It isn't hard, is it?
Well, I don't know about Ubuntu, but in Debian, you just have to do : apt-get source "packagename". Isn't it the same in Ubuntu ?
Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue (Score:2)
Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue (Score:3, Informative)
Storm in a teacup (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Storm in a teacup (Score:2, Informative)
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, I'm no expert on these things, so maybe I've missed something?
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:1)
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is silly.... (Score:1)
when I emailed an enquiry the reply was
prepare 1 cd of source code
sell code / install cd to customer
sell source cd to customer
offer to buy back source cd for 1 cent
go to next customer
Tree of distributions (Score:2)
Those are Debian, Gentoo, Red Hat, Slackware.
Re:Tree of distributions (Score:5, Funny)
(this part courtesy of oracleofbacon.org)
Keanu Reeves was in Speed (1994/I) with Beau Starr
Beau Starr was in Where the Truth Lies (2005) with Kevin Bacon.
So there you have it. All those original distros have at most a Bacon number of 3.
Re:Tree of distributions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tree of distributions (Score:5, Informative)
mod parent up (Score:1)
Re:Tree of distributions (Score:2)
Re:Tree of distributions (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tree of distributions (Score:3, Interesting)
"Not entirely accurate." ... Isn't that synonymous with "found on the internet"? ;-)
Re:Tree of distributions (Score:2)
To the people who don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
Re:To the people who don't understand (Score:2)
Re:To the people who don't understand (Score:2)
No one mentioned the deliberate mistake in the article, Ubuntu have to distribute the source for 3 years after they stop distributing the binaries, not "for as long as they distribute binaries".
I agree with the "it isn't difficult line". My Desktop PC has enough disk space to store all of the Debian mirrors and archives (and I'm not planning on doing a distribution with three kernels and 11 architectures), I might have to switch off mirroring, but the disks weren't the e
RTFGPL (Score:2, Informative)
Well, have you ever actually read the GPL? The GPL does not require that you offer the source for free, only that you guarantee that the source will be available for a reasonable fee for the effort to provide the source. There's nothing there that
Re:RTFGPL (Score:1)
Re:RTFGPL (Score:2)
bogus objections (Score:2)
Furthermore, the site doesn't have to be a free-for-all: you can have people sign up an charge a few bucks for the download; except for setting it up once, there is no additional work for you.
Re:bogus objections (Score:1)
Indeed. In my case, I start with a basic setup of my preferred distro (in my case, Slackware) and build most of the other stuff I use with the best packaging system of all:
...using the sources direct from the original developers. I find this to be an easy way to keep abreast of current releases (so I don't have to worry about whether my dist
Re:bogus objections (Score:2)
Do you not use checkinstall? I find that the minor quirks (occasionally resetting the permissions on
Like you, I prefer to hand-roll my software. This is one of the big reasons my private server is being migrated from FreeBSD to slack, too.[0]
[0]Warning: Do NOT mention ports to me as a "solution."
Re:bogus objections (Score:1)
Ummm... well, no, not really. I don't use checkinstall mainly because it isn't always a very useful option. I have found (the hard way) that not all programs are amenable to such "easy" packaging solutions when kept separate (in
Re:To the people who don't understand (Score:2)
What people were asking was how to comply with the GPL and mailing a disk (where they pay the cost) meets the requirements. You don't have to have the source on line and you don't have to pay for bandwidth. It's nice if Ubuntu wants to help but making the source available s
The problem: archives (Score:4, Insightful)
Suppose I redistribute binaries for a GPLed program, and the package I distribute is updated every week. On the server where I distribute the packages, I only need to distribute the latest version of the compiled code; however, due to the GPL requirements, I have to keep source packages available for the next 3 years -- that is, I need to keep 150+ source packages available.
It's easy to make the source code available in the same place as the executable code. Making the source code available in that same place for the next three years gets expensive.
Wrong answer to the wrong problem... (Score:2)
The answer would be: Use whatever license you want. You are NOT obligated to provide online distribution
of the sources you used to make the binary image. You are obligated to provide some sort of access upon
request for three years from the first distibution of the binary image in question. Big fundamental
difference between that and what was presented by everyone so far.
I honestly can't see worrying about this- it's NOT hard to comply with
Re:Wrong answer to the wrong problem... (Score:2)
Indeed! In fact, unless you're distributing the binaries online, merely providing the source online won't cut it. If you're not providing the source up-front, you have to deliver the source later (up to three years later). Not just stick it on-line somewhere.
This is another reason why it's foolish to even think about not providing the source code up-front (which bypasses all this three-year-offer
Re:The problem: archives (Score:2)
What if you make the source control system available using cvsweb or a similar system. People can still download the current version easily, and they can use a tag to get a specific version if they really want that.
Re:The problem: archives (Score:2)
You only have to make the code available for 3 years if you did *not* distribute the source code along with the binary. So just upload the source code together with the binary, and problem solved.
Re:The problem: archives (Score:1)
Re:The problem: archives (Score:2)
archive them and provide the source on cd for the cost of the cd + the cost of mailing it out for older versions of the distro.
Since you are allowed to pass along the physical costs of providing the source code to the person requesting it, the costs to the maintainer are insignificant.
*bzzt* thanks for playing! :) (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's not true! I don't know if you're merely ignorant or trying to FUD, but bottom line is that you're simply wrong!
If you're making the source available with the binaries, then you don't need to make the source available for three years. The three-year clause (clause 3b) only applies if you're not providing source when you provide binaries. You can either (3a) provide source with the binaries or (3b) include a three-year written offer to provide the source or (3c) pass along a 3b offer that you received (non-commercial distributors only). Those are alternative options, not simultaneous requirements. And nobody with any sense uses anything but clause 3a! (Note: I've used all three.)
Look at the last paragraph in section 3: "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." (Emphasis mine.) This is the famous "equivalent access" clause that almost all non-commercial distros rely on, and have for years. (At least, all the ones run by people with any sense.)
So having source and binaries on your site qualifies as complying with clause 3a, and you don't need to worry about the three-year feature of 3b!
If you're distributing on CD/DVD, the same reasoning applies. Just ship the source too! Yes, it may double your up-front media costs, but those are trivial compared to your other costs, and it's going to save you a lot of trouble down the road.
Re:The problem: archives (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
ubuntu already does this (Score:2)
Re:ubuntu already does this (Score:2)
Re:ubuntu already does this (Score:2)
Yes, that's how it works. No matter which one (Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu) you've installed, do
It's Nice (Score:1)
Good Move-kudos to the Ubuntu team (Score:5, Insightful)
1. they have decided to HELP out the community....+ points
2. not all developers cna afford the bandwidth, or do not have the resources easily available to ship source or provide for download.....+points, as still available from Ubuntu
3. this can go on, I'll not bother- but the point being is Ubuntu is trying to HELP the community-what's not to like about this?
IMHO, this is showing the true spirit of FOSS, so unless you have an agenda against FOSS, then give 'em a hand/applause, whichever you can do!
RTFL (Score:1)
Doubles the
Re:RTFL (Score:2)
> "Doubles the download, but why not add source?"
Only doubles the download if people actually download it. For downloads, making the source available is enough. You don't have to force people to download it. Search for "equivalent access" in the GPL text for more details.
Re: clause 3c
> "That sounds like referencing another distro would do it."
Only if that distro comes with a three-year offer. Most use clause 3a (provide the source up-front) rather than clause 3b (provide written offer
Upstream? (Score:1)
All distribution ultimately relies on an "upstream" distributor.
Let's say you provide FTP access, but use a colocated [wikipedia.org] server that you don't own -- you have an agreement with an upstream provider to provide bandwidth and disk space to provide your licensees with the source. Why does it matter if it's Rackspace or Ubuntu who serves as the upstream provider? Or if it's Memorex media and the Post Office or a floppy and delivered via sneakernet [wikipedia.org]?
The intent here is clea
Nefarious is the wrong word. (Score:2)
But you see this all the time. People shipping GPLed software and not providing the source to their version, even when they have modified it. I'm not talking about Sveasoft here, I'm talking about little guys who have no idea they're doing anything wrong because they didn't read or did
Smart downloader? (Score:1)
That means if i accompany the sourcecode immediate, there is no need to keep it available longer? If i write a downloader which downloads all sources immediate, ie fetches the exact versions from the repository where i got that stuff, i am ok? Would be a big d
This exemplifies why Ubuntu is taking over (Score:3, Interesting)
In Fedora:
- RedHat controls the board that decides what goes in an what stays out. It's kind of like a "No Parking, Violators Will be Towed" thing.
- RedHat directly takes over source code maintenance for any package that they decide to include. Original authors are typically out of the loop.
- The old fedora.us was a user-created add-on package site for RedHat (which use to be free). Marketing at RedHat merged them, then toss them.
- Enhancements to code are made by RedHat are usually only available AFTER the RedHat releases software that uses them.
- Derivatives of RedHat software get no support, but I bet they get nice letters from RedHat legal.
In Ubuntu:
- You are encouraged to become a "Master of the Universe", and help decide what goes in and to maintain the packages.
- Ubuntu only takes control over core packages required for average end-users to have stable environments.
- There's little need for a user group to build unofficial add-ons (other than EasyBuntu
- Enhancements to open-source are fed back to the authors promptly. Authors are in the loop.
- Derivatives in theory will be welcomed.
Let's face it: RedHat is a public company controlled by shareholders. Their goal is therefore to suck more money out of us than ever before, and to do it in the next 12 months, so stockholders can sell their stock at a nice profit, and get out. Ubuntu is controlled by the BDFL (one man, the right man), and has been given over to a foundation for long-term viability. Their goal is to replace Windows on the Desktop, and to worry about how that translates into obscene wealth later.
As for the value of getting real support for a derivative distribution... if I were doing a startup based on Unbuntu code, I'd sure as heck want it!
Re:This exemplifies why Ubuntu is taking over (Score:1)
Derivatives of RedHat software get no support, but I bet they get nice letters from RedHat legal.
Perhaps the parent misses the point of the GPL?
Re:This exemplifies why Ubuntu is taking over (Score:1)
Lawyers aren't for keeping everything above the law. They are for harassing your competitors into oblivion. I would give you very good odds that RedHat lawyers sends nasty letters to the likes of Centos. Check out:
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.ph p?id=2 [centos.org]
Notice the fuzzy language: "CentOS 2, 3, and 4 are built from publically available open source SRPMS provided by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor." The old web sit
Re:This exemplifies why Ubuntu is taking over (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This exemplifies why Ubuntu is taking over (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This exemplifies why Ubuntu is taking over (Score:1)
The short answer to your post: I need to have another look at Fedora now that version 5 is available. Up through version 4, the RPM situation was terrible. Every time I added additional repositories to up2date, I regretted it. Things would work for a while, and then up2date would just stop working, making it difficult to upgrade the system.
I've used RedHat, and later Fedora s
FreeDOS ODIN and the GPL (Score:2)
Re:FreeDOS ODIN and the GPL (Score:2)
Re:FreeDOS ODIN and the GPL (Score:2)
"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.)"
You can only accompany it with an offer you received if you received such an offer! Most GPL software is distributed under Subsection a (source included), rath
Nice gesture (Score:1)
So they're willing to take up the requirement of keeping the sources around for at least 3 years longer than they would otherwise have to, just for the benefit of derived distros? That's a pretty nice gesture! I hope they do realize what they're offering to do