Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
Hello, I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain GPL-licensed software, including dpkg, but not their sources. I also couldn't find any written offer for them in my mail package. Should I consider this an implicit offer valid for three years after receiving the package? Should I be able to ask them for the sources two years from now, considering I asked for the package in the last six months? Or should I consider this a GPL violation? Then, I hope dpkg copyright holders inforce their copyright. Regards, Thadeu Cascardo. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
Am Dienstag, den 08.11.2005, 10:37 -0200 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Hello, > > I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their > Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain > GPL-licensed software, including dpkg, but not their sources. I also > couldn't find any written offer for them in my mail package. Should I > consider this an implicit offer valid for three years after receiving > the package? Should I be able to ask them for the sources two years > from now, considering I asked for the package in the last six months? > > Or should I consider this a GPL violation? Then, I hope dpkg copyright > holders inforce their copyright. On http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/documentation/faq/shipit/ you can read: Can You Send me Source CDs? We do not normally distribute source CDs and you cannot order them through shipit. That said, in order to comply with the GPL, we are happy to distribute source code on CD to anybody we give a binary CD. More information is written in fine print on the back of each CD. Source for everything on the CD is always available at http://archive.ubuntu.com or can be ordered from Canonical for the cost of the media plus shipping. -- Jan Lübbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://sicherheitsschwankung.de gpg-key 1024D/D8480F2E 2002-03-20 fingerprint 1B25 F91F 9E7B 5D4F 1282 02D6 8A83 8BE4 D848 0F2E
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 02:51:07PM +0100, Jan Lübbe wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 08.11.2005, 10:37 -0200 schrieb > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > Hello, > > > > I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their > > Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain > > GPL-licensed software, including dpkg, but not their sources. I also > > couldn't find any written offer for them in my mail package. Should I > > consider this an implicit offer valid for three years after receiving > > the package? Should I be able to ask them for the sources two years > > from now, considering I asked for the package in the last six months? > > > > Or should I consider this a GPL violation? Then, I hope dpkg copyright > > holders inforce their copyright. > > On http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/documentation/faq/shipit/ you can > read: > > Can You Send me Source CDs? > We do not normally distribute source CDs and you cannot order them through > shipit. That said, in order to comply with the GPL, we are happy to distribute > source code on CD to anybody we give a binary CD. More information is written > in fine print on the back of each CD. Source for everything on the CD is > always > available at http://archive.ubuntu.com or can be ordered from Canonical for > the > cost of the media plus shipping. > > -- > Jan Lübbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://sicherheitsschwankung.de > gpg-key 1024D/D8480F2E 2002-03-20 > fingerprint 1B25 F91F 9E7B 5D4F 1282 02D6 8A83 8BE4 D848 0F2E > Thanks for the answer. I am subscribed to the list. Would have told otherwise. Congratulations to Ubuntu. I just hope they are aware that they should distribute sources for three years after the last distribution and that distributing the sources along with the binaries is safer. And that allows me to redistribute the binaries as long as I don't do it commercially. I should advise my friends to ask the sources to Ubuntu in case they want them. What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask for the sources? -- Thadeu Cascardo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute > ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written > promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask > for the sources? A file is a file is a file. It doesn't matter if the sources are distributed in an iso image or in some other form of collection of files, up to and including distribution by a SCM. (Just IMHO, but I think reasonable people would agree.) -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask for the sources? I am not a lawyer nor a devlepper of Debian, I just give my humble opinion. I don't think this is a violation of the GPL as long as the source is available. The GPL requires that if you distribute binary on a website you should distribute the source on the same place. Howhever, it is not because you distribute binaries in the ISO format that the source must also be ditributed in the ISO format. Many distribution (Mandriva, Suse) distribute .iso binaries along with a ftp repositery with source. If someone distribute a .iso binary without distributing the source at all then this is a violation of the GPL. However if the binaries have not be changed at all and the source is available elsewhere (like someone putting, just the binaries of Debian CD on his website); many people consider that there is no problem. This is not however the opinion of the FSF (see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCSourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites) Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:57:05AM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute > ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written > promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask > for the sources? > > -- > Thadeu Cascardo > I will reply my own message in response to Olive and Joey Hess. That's also my non-lawyer's opinion. What I will say is some reasoning about requiring the same terms for copying binaries and source. Not following them by the word may be mere toleration by the copyright holder or because the distributor makes sure source distribution occurs when it is requested. But why? Why should the offer for copying the source be made in the same terms as the copying of the binaries? Because a distributor may make it difficult for someone to get the sources. It may put the sources on a machine with low bandwidth, which would take a thousand times the time to download the binary. Or else it may put the source behind a proprietary protocol, which would require the installation of some software under some unreasonable license (imagine one which only allows its use if you do not develop software for the same purposes). The following situation is a good example: The author of a popular software decides to stop distribution of binaries, since it is GPL-licensed and contains other people's contributions. He decides using some SCM software which uses a non-documented proprietary protocol and does not allow its redistribution and would require you to pay a $1000 fee. The author also stops making releases of tarballs, saying the SCM is a wonderful piece of software and does not require releases any more. And that any one can buy the SCM software and get the sources. He is allowed to do all of that. Some redistributor gets the source, makes no modification to it and puts a compiled version so everybody can download it without paying for the download itself or the SCM software so he can get the sources and build it itself. Now, you get the binaries from this distributor, asks him for the sources and he tells you it is freely available on the net by the author's SCM repository. Is this reasonable? Then imagine the author and the distributor are the same person (and perhaps, not the original author, but someone who makes modifications to the software.) That's why you should offer an *equivalent* access to the sources in the *same* place. Any disagreements and comments are welcome. Remember I have the opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different place but with equivalent access (similar bandwidth and availability and such) or under some different protocols or formats as long as they are pretty standard and there are plenty of popular and free software available to get them. However, it's better to play safe and do not count with an author and a judge that do not agree with this. Thadeu Cascardo. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On Tue, 2005-08-11 at 11:57 -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask for the sources? What does this have to do with Debian? ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:57:05AM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask for the sources? -- Thadeu Cascardo I will reply my own message in response to Olive and Joey Hess. That's also my non-lawyer's opinion. What I will say is some reasoning about requiring the same terms for copying binaries and source. Not following them by the word may be mere toleration by the copyright holder or because the distributor makes sure source distribution occurs when it is requested. But why? Why should the offer for copying the source be made in the same terms as the copying of the binaries? Because a distributor may make it difficult for someone to get the sources. It may put the sources on a machine with low bandwidth, which would take a thousand times the time to download the binary. Or else it may put the source behind a proprietary protocol, which would require the installation of some software under some unreasonable license (imagine one which only allows its use if you do not develop software for the same purposes). The following situation is a good example: The author of a popular software decides to stop distribution of binaries, since it is GPL-licensed and contains other people's contributions. He decides using some SCM software which uses a non-documented proprietary protocol and does not allow its redistribution and would require you to pay a $1000 fee. The author also stops making releases of tarballs, saying the SCM is a wonderful piece of software and does not require releases any more. And that any one can buy the SCM software and get the sources. He is allowed to do all of that. Some redistributor gets the source, makes no modification to it and puts a compiled version so everybody can download it without paying for the download itself or the SCM software so he can get the sources and build it itself. Now, you get the binaries from this distributor, asks him for the sources and he tells you it is freely available on the net by the author's SCM repository. Is this reasonable? Then imagine the author and the distributor are the same person (and perhaps, not the original author, but someone who makes modifications to the software.) That's why you should offer an *equivalent* access to the sources in the *same* place. Any disagreements and comments are welcome. Remember I have the opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different place but with equivalent access (similar bandwidth and availability and such) or under some different protocols or formats as long as they are pretty standard and there are plenty of popular and free software available to get them. However, it's better to play safe and do not count with an author and a judge that do not agree with this. It seems indeed clear that if the source are available with standard tools, this can be interpreted as equivalentg access. Interpreting *equivalent* too striclty leads to absurd situations where everyone violates the GPL; for example Debian distribute binary as .deb format; in what format should they thus ditribute the source? It would be more than absurd to requires that Debian ditribute source also in .deb format. An ISO file is just a kind of archive that can be extracted with very standard tools, just as tar.gz. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 02:38:50PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote: > On Tue, 2005-08-11 at 11:57 -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute > > ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written > > promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask > > for the sources? > > What does this have to do with Debian? > > ~ESP > > -- > Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) There seems to be some people who offer access to copy dpkg and other Debian related tools (mainly debian derivative free software distribution) who doesn't offer equivalent access to copy from the same place. Most of them usually ignore this GPL requirement. Since some copyright holders of some of those software are Debian developers and this list concerns legal issues related to Debian, it seemed to be the best list to discuss it. If there is any people concerned with this situation that would require more than a simple response like "sources are available in debian repository" from the distributors, we can check each distribution that is violating the GPL by not offering the source. -- Thadeu Cascardo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:39:39PM +0100, Olive wrote: > >That's why you should offer an *equivalent* access to the sources in > >the *same* place. > > > >Any disagreements and comments are welcome. Remember I have the > >opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different > >place but with equivalent access (similar bandwidth and availability > >and such) or under some different protocols or formats as long as they > >are pretty standard and there are plenty of popular and free software > >available to get them. However, it's better to play safe and do not > >count with an author and a judge that do not agree with this. > > It seems indeed clear that if the source are available with standard > tools, this can be interpreted as equivalentg access. Interpreting > *equivalent* too striclty leads to absurd situations where everyone > violates the GPL; for example Debian distribute binary as .deb format; > in what format should they thus ditribute the source? It would be more > than absurd to requires that Debian ditribute source also in .deb > format. An ISO file is just a kind of archive that can be extracted with > very standard tools, just as tar.gz. > > Olive > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I agree that offering access as tar.gz should be considered reasonable. And I would say it is pretty more acceptable than offering access through a SCM web browser. I would like to interpret GPL as in spirit and that would mean easy access to the sources, in my opinion. I just wouldn't agree that a mirror of Debian would not distribute sources of software that requires that, without making an offer to distribute the sources for at least three years. Pointing to Debian main repository should not be enough. Imagine Debian servers get down for any reason in the only day one could get the binaries and sources. -- Thadeu Cascardo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Remember I have the opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different place but with equivalent access (similar bandwidth and availability and such) or under some different protocols or formats as long as they are pretty standard and there are plenty of popular and free software available to get them. However, it's better to play safe and do not count with an author and a judge that do not agree with this. The GPL (not the only copyleft license, but by far the most common one) says the following: 3 You may ... distribute the Program... provided that you also do one of the following (redaction and emphasis mine): 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* As we can see from the text, any method at all can be used to distribute the source code, even one completely different from how the binary is distributed, provided it is a 'medium customarily used for software interchange'. Thus, you can distribute your binaries on CD yet your source on a website, or vice versa. A few years ago, you could probably have distributed your source by BBS (and you still could if such a thing is customary where you are). Offering your source by CVS would also fulfil the obligation: CVS is customarily used to interchange software. We can also see from the text that offering your source over a contrived SCM no-one uses does not discharge this obligation (it's not 'customarily used' to exchange software). If you don't also offer source over a customary medium, the GPL grants you no rights to distribute the software, and so the copyright holder may sue you. Aside: the paragraph "If distribution of executable or object code is made by ... along with the object code." is not saying that you must offer the source in the same place, it's saying that by offering your source in the same place, you can discharge your source obligation under 3a instead of 3b; this is why Debian does not have to keep source archives available for three years. -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:03:56AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute > > ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written > > promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask > > for the sources? > A file is a file is a file. It doesn't matter if the sources are > distributed in an iso image or in some other form of collection of > files, up to and including distribution by a SCM. Agreed, with the proviso that it's unacceptable to make people *dig* through an SCM to find the sources. There should be some clear indicator how people can get the sources that correspond to the binaries being distributed. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:56:31PM +, Lewis Jardine wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Remember I have the > >opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different > >place but with equivalent access (similar bandwidth and availability > >and such) or under some different protocols or formats as long as they > >are pretty standard and there are plenty of popular and free software > >available to get them. However, it's better to play safe and do not > >count with an author and a judge that do not agree with this. > > The GPL (not the only copyleft license, but by far the most common one) > says the following: > >3 You may ... distribute the Program... provided that you also do one > of the following (redaction and emphasis mine): > > > 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* > > As we can see from the text, any method at all can be used to distribute > the source code, even one completely different from how the binary is > distributed, provided it is a 'medium customarily used for software > interchange'. Thus, you can distribute your binaries on CD yet your > source on a website, or vice versa. A few years ago, you could probably > have distributed your source by BBS (and you still could if such a thing > is customary where you are). Offering your source by CVS would also > fulfil the obligation: CVS is customarily used to interchange software. > > We can also see from the text that offering your source over a contrived > SCM no-one uses does not discharge this obligation (it's not > 'customarily used' to exchange software). If you don't also offer source > over a customary medium, the GPL grants you no rights to distribute the > software, and so the copyright holder may sue you. > > Aside: the paragraph "If distribution of executable or object code is > made by ... along with the object code." is not saying that you must > offer the source in the same place, it's saying that by offering your > source in the same place, you can discharge your source obligation under > 3a instead of 3b; this is why Debian does not have to keep source > archives available for three years. > > -- > Lewis Jardine > IANAL, IANADD > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In my opinion, distributing in a medium customarily used for software interchange and offering access to copy from a designated place are not the same thing. Mainly because you cannot be sure the source code is properly distributed. You should make sure the person has the access to your host, which may not be true due to a number of reasons. On the side of the reasoning for this interpretation not to be of interest to users (which I consider a good way to reason about the spirit of the GPL), and for a practical reason for the one distributing the binaries, you mean everybody could distribute a copy of the CD and point to the same website as the location of the sources. Would the resources in the host serving this website be enough to people have their intended access to the source code? Would the people doing the distribution of copies risk an unavailability of such host as interpreted by the person receiving the software as not distributing the source? Would the host serving the website be willing to be pointed to by every such distributor instead of being mirrored by him? Thus, I would not consider my sources being properly distributed to someone if they are only pointed to an URL. -- Thadeu Cascardo. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my opinion, distributing in a medium customarily used for software interchange and offering access to copy from a designated place are not the same thing. Mainly because you cannot be sure the source code is properly distributed. You should make sure the person has the access to your host, which may not be true due to a number of reasons. Some user's request for source CDs might get lost in the post. Life is hard. On the side of the reasoning for this interpretation not to be of interest to users (which I consider a good way to reason about the spirit of the GPL), and for a practical reason for the one distributing the binaries, you mean everybody could distribute a copy of the CD and point to the same website as the location of the sources. > Would the resources in the host serving this website be > enough to people have their intended access to the source code? Would > the people doing the distribution of copies risk an unavailability of > such host as interpreted by the person receiving the software as not > distributing the source? Would the host serving the website be willing > to be pointed to by every such distributor instead of being mirrored > by him? The GPL covers this: if you point people towards some third-party's URL, it's this third-party that's distributing the source, not you*. This means that it's not 'you' who 'also do[es] one of the following', and thus you don't get granted any rights by the GPL. /Debian/ pointing to Debian's main repository is enough for the GPL, and is even sufficient to fulfil 'offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place'. Because it does this, Debian does not need to make an offer under 3b, which means people wanting to distribute under 3c have no offer from Debian to pass on. IIRC several Debian-based live CDs have got in trouble for doing this. Thus, I would not consider my sources being properly distributed to someone if they are only pointed to an URL. If you want to guarantee distribution of source over and above what the GPL's requires, you're probably going to have to write your own license (bearing in mind that it will not be compatible with the GPL's 'You may not impose any further restrictions'). * Unless have an arrangement with this third-party to host the source for you, in which case they're your agent. -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 12:13:08AM +, Lewis Jardine wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >In my opinion, distributing in a medium customarily used for software > >interchange and offering access to copy from a designated place are > >not the same thing. Mainly because you cannot be sure the source code > >is properly distributed. You should make sure the person has the > >access to your host, which may not be true due to a number of reasons. > > Some user's request for source CDs might get lost in the post. Life is > hard. > Well, when they have requested and are paying for it as in GPL 3b, I guess the distributor (who have only distributed the binary for the first time) will have some trouble and should send another source CDs. Accompanying the sources as in 3a is always safer. Life is hard! :-) > >On the side of the reasoning for this interpretation not to be of > >interest to users (which I consider a good way to reason about the > >spirit of the GPL), and for a practical reason for the one > >distributing the binaries, you mean everybody could distribute a copy > >of the CD and point to the same website as the location of the > >sources. > > Would the resources in the host serving this website be > > enough to people have their intended access to the source code? Would > > the people doing the distribution of copies risk an unavailability of > > such host as interpreted by the person receiving the software as not > > distributing the source? Would the host serving the website be willing > > to be pointed to by every such distributor instead of being mirrored > > by him? > > The GPL covers this: if you point people towards some third-party's URL, > it's this third-party that's distributing the source, not you*. This > means that it's not 'you' who 'also do[es] one of the following', and > thus you don't get granted any rights by the GPL. > Which situation is this? I'm considering when you distribute the binaries withoug accompanying complete source code or a third-party written offer as in 3c. I was responding to someone who considered distribution of source code as in 3a when you simply pointed out an URL in your package containing the binaries and only the binaries. > /Debian/ pointing to Debian's main repository is enough for the GPL, and > is even sufficient to fulfil 'offering equivalent access to copy the > source code from the same place'. Because it does this, Debian does not > need to make an offer under 3b, which means people wanting to distribute > under 3c have no offer from Debian to pass on. IIRC several Debian-based > live CDs have got in trouble for doing this. > Sure! Debian makes its job offering access to copy the sources from its repositories. But most people distributing Debian-based live CDs or mirrors are not respecting the GPL. Simply pointing to Debian main repositories is not enough to satisfy the GPL. > >Thus, I would not consider my sources being properly distributed to > >someone if they are only pointed to an URL. > If you want to guarantee distribution of source over and above what the > GPL's requires, you're probably going to have to write your own license > (bearing in mind that it will not be compatible with the GPL's 'You may > not impose any further restrictions'). > Distributing the sources as required by the GPL is enough for me, as long as you don't think simply including an URL in the docs means source distribution or a equivalent offer when you didn't offered to make a copy of the binaries from the same place. > > * Unless have an arrangement with this third-party to host the source > for you, in which case they're your agent. > -- > Lewis Jardine > IANAL, IANADD > > I am not a lawyer nor a Debian developer either. Thadeu Cascardo -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On Tue, 2005-08-11 at 11:03 -0500, Joey Hess wrote: (Just IMHO, but I think reasonable people would agree.) Isn't that the definition of your opinion? ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On 11/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their > Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain > GPL-licensed software, including dpkg, but not their sources. Ubuntu does distribute sources; and in a quite reasonable fashion. > Or should I consider this a GPL violation? Then, I hope dpkg copyright > holders inforce their copyright. You need to find more important things to think about and hope for. -- Chris "`The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy,' he said. `But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.' - Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED], bizzar name you have... Am 2005-11-08 14:36:26, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > That's also my non-lawyer's opinion. What I will say is some reasoning > about requiring the same terms for copying binaries and source. Not > following them by the word may be mere toleration by the copyright > holder or because the distributor makes sure source distribution > occurs when it is requested. Who need the whole Sourcecode for a Distribution ? Imagine, there is a Distributor which limited Diskspace on the Web/ FTP-Server and the bandwidth is sponsored... Imagine 10.000 peoples want to compile one little tool of some kByte (like me with ssmtp) with another options... Insteed of downloading some kByte, the need to fetch a 650 MByte Image where 649,95 MByte are useless... Asking for downloadable source images ia associal if the source mirror is publich availlable or source CD can be ordered fro distributor. > But why? Why should the offer for copying the source be made in the > same terms as the copying of the binaries? Because a distributor may > make it difficult for someone to get the sources. It may put the No, it is difficult to MOST users to get sources, if they ARE on CD. MOST user need only singel source packages, but whole binary CD's for installation. > sources on a machine with low bandwidth, which would take a thousand > times the time to download the binary. Or else it may put the source Yeah, put the source into a seperate directory and use mod_throttle :-P > behind a proprietary protocol, which would require the installation of > some software under some unreasonable license (imagine one which only > allows its use if you do not develop software for the same purposes). This is stupid! > That's why you should offer an *equivalent* access to the sources in > the *same* place. IF you can FTP binary CD's it is enough, if you can get singel source packages from the same site (distributor not physicaly one) > Any disagreements and comments are welcome. Remember I have the 100% disagreement! Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
Am 2005-11-08 17:48:03, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > I agree that offering access as tar.gz should be considered > reasonable. And I would say it is pretty more acceptable than offering > access through a SCM web browser. I would like to interpret GPL as in > spirit and that would mean easy access to the sources, in my > opinion. I just wouldn't agree that a mirror of Debian would not > distribute sources of software that requires that, without making an > offer to distribute the sources for at least three years. This is not right, because I know a couple of mirrors which have only binary-i386 and disks-i386 because limited disk space. because it IS a partial mirror and the Debian binaries are equivalent worldwide, it can easy downloaded from other official Debian-Mirrors. > Pointing to Debian main repository should not be enough. Imagine I think, this is not right. > Debian servers get down for any reason in the only day one could get Hmmm, several 1000' Servers going down the same time and ONLY your server with binarys stay On-Line? > the binaries and sources. Please consider consulting your PSY. Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
