simple solution
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tbuitenh Jun 28, 2006 2:12 AM EDT |
If you distribute unmodified binary packages, stop distributing those and let the package manager download them from the upstream distribution instead. For debian-based distributions, search the web for "apt pinning" to get an idea of how to do this. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 28, 2006 2:38 AM EDT |
It's not quite that easy. What if you have a program that you distribute unmodified today, but you want to modify tomorrow? You'd have to update your user's apt configurations. It's far easier to simply sync in the source to your own server. An apt repository is nothing more than an ftp or http directory layed out in a certain way. Syncing is easy enough. You do it when you pull in the binary as well. If you can sync bnaries, you can sync source, and syncing is all it takes (we're talking unmodified binaries here - they already provide the source for modified binaries). It does take up some space on the server, but it'll hardly use any extra bandwidth. Not many people download source packages anyway. I'm with FSG/RMS on this one. |
| r_a_trip Jun 28, 2006 5:38 AM EDT |
This seems to be typical for Woodford. Everytime I see the name Woodford floating up in the online press, it involves Woodford's strenuous relationship with the GPL. It seems the father of Mepis is more than willing to reap the benefits of GPL-ed code, but he seems to be very reluctant when it comes to his obligations after accepting the GPL as a license. I think the stance of the FSF is a fair one. If the Free Software community wants the Four Freedoms to be taken seriously, there can be no exeptions to the GPL. To ensure fairness and equality, a license needs to be symetrical. If small fish can skirt the source distribution clauses by pointing to out-of-sync "mother repositories", it means that downstream licensees of small distributors don't get the same rights as licensees of major distributors. That is not defendable. Maybe Mepis can switch to a *BSD base. It doesn't have any other requirements then preserving the copyright atrribution and the waiver of liability. |
| dinotrac Jun 28, 2006 6:03 AM EDT |
The GPL's source distribution requirement is neither new nor secret. It is unbelievable to me that anybody doing a Linux distribution could be unaware of it. The requirement isn't onerous, either. No ftp sites required, no free distribution required. The GPL allows full cost recovery. Sounds like no excuses, boys. |
| jdixon Jun 28, 2006 6:04 AM EDT |
Sigh. Warren must build his modified packages from source, so he has to have the source code available. The unmodified package source is available from the Ubuntu or Debian servers, so all he has to do is mirror them. His server can be a $300 Dell machine and the net access can be Cable Modem or DSL from his house. How is this a problem? Sure, the Cable Modem or DSL service would mean very slow downloads of the source code, but speed isn't a requirement of the GPL, only availability. Heck, I've got a spare 500 MHz AMD/2 lying around and DSL service, so I could provide the server and access from my house, but I doubt he'd like the Mepis code being served from a Slackware server. :) |
| SyntaxError Jun 28, 2006 7:03 AM EDT |
I am glad to see that someone is monitoring the GPL compliance. The rules apply to everyone. Period. If not, why bother having the rules at all. Of course there are exceptions to the rules. However, the exceptions are rare and only applied to very special circumstances. There is nothing special about MEPIS. If Texstar of PCLinuxOS can comply, so does everyone else. I don't get the problem with not providing the source code to comply. The binary packages are already made available for the public to down. Why not adding the source? As someone already pointed out, most people don't download source code anyway. Very few do to re-compile their own. Even fewer do to roll their own distro flavor. Fair is fair. |
| Inhibit Jun 28, 2006 9:24 AM EDT |
Heck, he doesn't even *need* a server with all the free services out there that do the whole repository thing. I mean, seriously, we're talking an expenditure of a few minutes to write some rsync scripts. I've done that before to sync repositories locally because I was *bored*. |
| swbrown Jun 28, 2006 11:50 AM EDT |
Where did this non-story FUD originate, anyway? |
| tbuitenh Jun 28, 2006 11:51 AM EDT |
sander: it IS that easy. If you modify a package, put it in your distro's own repository, and apt on the user machines will upgrade the package to that instead of to versions from the upstream distro. Don't underestimate the power of well-configured apt. Of course you could switch to rsync-ing the source repositories of the upstream distribution, but when you're just starting and still using the limited webspace given to you by your ISP (or whatever) apt-pinning is the best solution. Also, this is the absolutely fasted way to get upstream bugfixes in packages you didn't modify to your users. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 28, 2006 12:08 PM EDT |
swbrown: The article showed up the same time that 'Get the Facts' ads started appearing on Newsforge. I smell sellout. And, like r_a_trip said, Mr. Woodford has a long history of playing license games, including a complete unwillingness to plainly state the licensing terms for his own custom Mepis bits. It is a non-story, all of his complaining is bogus, and the article is propaganda. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 29, 2006 2:07 AM EDT |
@tbuitenh: But won't you get versioning conflicts that way? E.g: upstream: package_1.0 you: package_1.0custom1 Your customized package will be installed. But as soon as upstream comes with package_1.1 it'll overwrite the custom package, right? But you don't want that. You'd want the user to hold on to package_1.0custom1 untill package_1.1custom1 is out. |
| tbuitenh Jun 29, 2006 11:55 PM EDT |
@sander: not if you configure apt properly, then it will always prefer your version no matter how old it is, as long as it exists. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!