On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > system that is Debian matter?
>
> Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the
> GPL for any instance where we're distributing .debs to users of debian
> systems.
Yeah, but wouldn't that be in violation of DFSG 8:
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the
program's being part of a Debian system.
Basically, if the license only is satisfied by a part of Debian, said part
not being transferred with the individual files, it looks as if the rights
attached to the individual files DO depend on being part of a Debian
system. Like it or not, this reading is exactly where RMS's head is at on
this issue. Can we really expect others to follow the DFSG when we do so
only when convenient? DFSG 8 later goes on to talk about distribution IAW
the license, so we're covered, but I'm not so sure that splitting hairs of
our own definitions is such a good idea.
(if I keep repeating this, I'll either add a few killfiles to my
collection, or somebody might actually see it... :)
> However, note that we're working on generalizing debian -- there's stuff
> like LSB, and various sorts of ports going on that potentially broadens
> the audience for our packages.
>
> > Are you, perchance, advocating we keep several (potentially several
> > thousand) copies of the GPL on every Debian machine out there on the
> > off chance that the end user (despite pointers in the copyright file)
> > is unable to get a copy of the GPL? Would it really matter, given
> > this end users isolation from the network?
>
> What, you're worried about a measly 18M? That's peanuts on a machine
> with several thousand GPLed packages installed. [Ok, maybe that's not
> very funny...]
There was a proposal to hack gzip to tokenize the entirety of the GPL to a
few data words... Make the total impact compressed OTO 30K--19K in the
gzip code and 21K for the 3K packages at about 7 bytes/package.
> Anyways, optimization should come after correctness, not before.
>
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:19:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Debian advertises a freely redistributable system, with no special need
> > > to read copyrights before redistributing all or part of it.
>
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:24:35PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Not exactly. If I upload /bin/ls from my system to a BBS without
> > providing source, I am violating the GPL. If I start distributing
> > GPL'd .debs without source (whether or not the .debs have a copy of
> > the GPL), I am violating the GPL.
>
> Different issue. The GPL appears to claim that you must distribute
> a copy of the license with the binaries, even when you ship the source
> separately.
WITH or WITHIN? If it's WITH, wouldn't a copy of COPYING in each
directory (except non-free :) and a dependency on
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL cover us? If it's WITHIN, we have the can
of worms that's open ATM. This is the real question. What will satisfy
the FSF? Not what does the FSF want, but what will they walk away from
this mess thinking that they got all that they could from it and falling
under my definition of fair: "a fair solution is one that pisses everyone
off equally".
> > > If we now claim that our .debs are not redistributable without first
> > > reading the copyright file, we should post this new claim prominently
> > > (for example, as part of our home page).
> >
> > Well, perhaps we *should* point out that a *lot* of the software we
> > provide *cannot* be redistributed *unless* you also provide the
> > source. That is, after all, the terms of the GPL, and it clearly
> > doesn't match what you seem to think.
>
> Good idea. [There's a good chance we already do this, but I've
> not taken time to look.]
How about another RMS induced setup window (HHOS)?
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:55:25PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > The doctrine you're citing could have been that the moon was made
> > of green cheese for all of the citation you'd done in the past.
> > Furthermore, there is still 17USC507b: The FSF may be denied relief
> > at all in the case of Debian. It hardly seems right that where a
> > statutory limit has been reached, you are prevented relief against
> > others. Basically, Debian is now "grandfathered in" because of a
> > snafu: EvilCorp is not. Go bother EvilCorp.
>
> That only works if we stopped distributing such things at least three
> years ago.
I think that good faith falls in here somewhere. Basically if we
distributed things in good faith for three years, despite the fact that we
violated the GPL UNKNOWINGLY, we'd be allowed by law to continue, but we
couldn't transfer the rights. Think of it as squatters rights for
IP.
>
--
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
damn.
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
