GPL 'Non-Compliant' Distros...?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ACSial Mar 09, 2009 6:20 PM EDT |
I saw another thread on this site, re. two distros (Mepis & Zenwalk) that are/were not compliant with the GPL source code policy. Are there any others? Also, any opinions of people here about the CCDL 7 BSD licenses? Adam |
| caitlyn Mar 09, 2009 6:37 PM EDT |
There are MANY Linux distros that fail to comply with the GPL by failing to provide all the source code. A few that come to mind off the top of my head are NimbleX, Klikit, Linpus Lite and Absolute Linux. There are others. Lots of them. Oh, and yes, I wish there was some way to get this enforced. |
| bigg Mar 09, 2009 10:05 PM EDT |
I will note that AFAIK both Mepis and Zenwalk are now in compliance. |
| caitlyn Mar 09, 2009 11:13 PM EDT |
@bigg: Zenwalk still has decidedly incomplete sources so it still isn't in compliance. Mepis might be. I haven't checked. |
| ACSial Mar 10, 2009 3:53 AM EDT |
Thanks... Why do they not do this? I can't imagine that bandwidth is a problem/excuse, since few people download the source-code (e.g., simpletons/non-geeks, like me), as opposed to the images. Do the OpenSolaris people go after people who don't do this with CDDL code? |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 10, 2009 5:36 AM EDT |
ACSial: Most of the time it comes from a misunderstanding of the GPL. A lot of people think that if they for example build an Ubuntu derivative, they only need to publish the source code of the packages the changed and that they can simply point to Ubuntu for the source code of the packages that they did not change. That's not true most of the time (See the LWN feature about OpenBTS for a rare case where this is true). |
| dinotrac Mar 10, 2009 3:21 PM EDT |
You would think some of these distros would offer to make source CDs or DVDs available for $25 a pop, or something like that. Considering that it takes time and effort to burn/mail a CD, and that time is worth something (a company would be paying somebody to do it), that would be an acceptable solution to all. |
| DiBosco Mar 10, 2009 8:04 PM EDT |
dino, this is a point that has been made in embedded Linux courses I have attended. It's quite acceptable to charge a sum of money to supply the source code on a CD/DVD as long as the price is reasonable. |
| jdixon Mar 10, 2009 8:37 PM EDT |
> ...make source CDs or DVDs available for $25 a pop, or something like that. > It's quite acceptable to charge a sum of money to supply the source code on a CD/DVD as long as the price is reasonable. $25 seems on the high end of reasonable to me. $10 would be completely reasonable, and $20 might be, with recent rates of inflation. But that's really just nitpicking, I don't think anyone could argue that $25 was unreasonable enough to violate the GPL, so yeah, it's good. |
| azerthoth Mar 10, 2009 9:08 PM EDT |
jdixon ... curious where you too came up with 'reasonable' cost being a requirement on the GPL. neither section 1 of GPLv2 nor section 4 of GPLv3 mentions anything about it being reasonable. Section 4 of GPLv3 states bluntly that you can charge any fee. |
| gus3 Mar 10, 2009 9:34 PM EDT |
Paragraph 1 of the GPLv2 states, "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..." So does that mean I can charge $100 to send someone a CD with the source code for GNU grep? Or would that bring down a load of GNU wrath on my head? Sure, it violates the spirit of the license, but it isn't like I'm extorting anyone for that money. |
| azerthoth Mar 10, 2009 10:19 PM EDT |
gus3 it means in a nutshell, that for those non compliant distros, they could set the charge high enough to contract it out to have it done for them and the only thing that anyone could do is whine about it. |
| caitlyn Mar 10, 2009 11:53 PM EDT |
@Sander: I think you are right about the reasoning used to justify non-compliant repositories by some distro developers. It doesn't explain those who offer no source code whatsoever even for the packages that they custom build. Some of the distros that do this are commercial in nature and effectively treat their distro as proprietary. azerthoth, IMHO, much gets it right. There is a requirement that source code be provided. There is no requirement about in what form it is provided (online repository, iso, CD, DVD, etc...) nor is there any definition of reasonable cost. If tomorrow I create CaitlynOS (heaven forbid!) the only requirement is that I make source code available to anyone who wants it somehow, some way. If I fail to make it available at all or in part I'm in violation. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 11, 2009 5:24 PM EDT |
Why isn't providing a link to the source you used good enough? Providing a link is making the source you used available to the end user - just because you're utilizing an external repository doesn't mean that you're restricting access to the source, and isn't that what the spirit of the GPL is all about? |
| gus3 Mar 11, 2009 5:46 PM EDT |
The means of providing the source should be the same used to provide the binaries. Internet only? Fine. But if you're shipping CD's or DVD's, then you don't know if their net access is restricted, and links to source may not be sufficient. You should be prepared to send discs with the source code as well. |
| caitlyn Mar 11, 2009 5:48 PM EDT |
@DarrenR114: A link to a site you have no control over, like an external repository, means it could disappear at any time even if your distro is still alive. In any case the GPL doesn't allow for that and the issue here is license compliance. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 11, 2009 6:18 PM EDT |
Moreover, you are required to be able to make the source available for at least 3 years after your last distribution. PS: It looks like this "You must host yourself" requirement has changed with GPLv3. To me it looks like according to section 6d you are allowed to point to an upstream repository as long as you clearly say where it is (something that can easily be done using package managers). But, if upstream goes away you must make the source available yourself. So. Zenwalk can point to Slackware (for GPLv3 package sources) but if Slackware dies they are still responsible for providing the source in an alternative way. Are you reading this the same way I am? |
| caitlyn Mar 11, 2009 7:54 PM EDT |
@Sander: Yes, I am. Zenwalk builds its own packages to its own standards and includes lots of things not in Slackware. For many versions of many packages sources are still just plain missing. |
| hkwint Mar 11, 2009 8:14 PM EDT |
Out of curiousity: Is there any difference between GPLv2 and v3 here? I understand GPLv3 doesn't ask for written sources to be available anymore, does it also provide for the source being 'somewhere else', like parts of the MEPIS-GPLv3-apps source being at Ubuntu or so? |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 12, 2009 6:02 AM EDT |
@Hans: Yes, there's a difference. GPLv2 doesn't say anything specific about network distribution while GPLv3 seems to say that you can point to upstream under certain circumstances. |
You cannot post until you login.