[split] GPL discussion

arooaroo · 2006-09-04 23:01:29

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9113053102.html

I'm just the messenger!

I do believe that the interpretation is correct if you read the GPL license.

And let's imagine that you only have to provide sources for modified packages, then AL has those too. Look at all those packages that are patched in the PKGBUILD. Amarok is one such example of a modified GPL package within the AL repositories.

Lone_Wolf · 2006-09-04 23:15:54

I've been reading that and other links, and it does seem we have a problem.
Not only do we need to provide the source code, WE HAVE TO KEEP IT AVAILABLE FOR 3 YEARS !

Imagine how much space that will cost a rolling release distro !

Romashka · 2006-09-04 23:26:16

Here is that Section 3 of GPL:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
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; or,
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.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
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.

English is not my native language but there's nothing about "keepking code for 3 years".
I think someone has misinterpreted "b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years"or forgotten that b is one of choices

arooaroo · 2006-09-04 23:34:01

You don't have to put them online, especially given the cost of hosting them for largely superfluous reasons. Distribution via CD/DVD seems the best way as it's more pay-as-you-go and you can fairly calculate an associated cost.

GPL is great for open source apps but not so great for distro maintainers. Of course, distros benefit for free from these GPL packages and that's why there are such conditions in the license.

Eliatamby · 2006-09-04 23:38:03

I googled "Mepis GPL trouble" and most say it's redistribution in general.

I guess according to GPL, a distribution is redistributing binaries and hence like any entity is required to provide full access to the source directly. The issue seems to be this mirroring thing, which would definitely be a pain for smaller distros.

Obviously someone officially from Arch will comment on this, but this could be a major pain in the arse. Technically i don't think ABS would count, since it's not mirroring the package (although in effect we're pretty cutting edge so it's not very likely that some of the scenarios I've read re mirroring would effect us), but rather linking directly. It looks like if someone wanted to they could make this a major issue.

arooaroo · 2006-09-04 23:38:46

Romashka wrote:

English is not my native language but there's nothing about "keepking code for 3 years".
I think someone has misinterpreted "b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years"or forgotten that b is one of choices

For it to be valid for 3 years it means that the distributor must have access to the source in order for them to give it out if requested. It's clearly a safer option to keep hold of any sources that have been distributed as you can't guarantee that the sources you used (that is, version for version, not just he latest) will be easily accessible 3 years down the line.

arooaroo · 2006-09-04 23:45:28

Eliatamby wrote:

Technically i don't think ABS would count, since it's not mirroring the package

Generally, I agree that the AUR (that's what you meant by ABS, right?) would not fall under the license. However, there packages that include patches that have been uploaded to the AUR, and these patches don't seem to have license details attached to them, but these could potentially be under the GPL too, in which case these are being distributed by AL via AUR, and you know what that means.

Romashka · 2006-09-04 23:47:02

arooaroo wrote:

Romashka wrote:
English is not my native language but there's nothing about "keepking code for 3 years".
I think someone has misinterpreted "b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years"or forgotten that b is one of choices
For it to be valid for 3 years it means that the distributor must have access to the source in order for them to give it out if requested. It's clearly a safer option to keep hold of any sources that have been distributed as you can't guarantee that the sources you used (that is, version for version, not just he latest) will be easily accessible 3 years down the line.

Yes, but how b) is used by Linux distributors? The key words are written offer. IMHO only a) is meaningful for most distributors, isn't it?

Romashka · 2006-09-04 23:49:09

Lets see this also:

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.

So if Arch packages are distributed from ftp.archlinux.org and mirrors then source code must be available from the same place. Am I correct?

arooaroo · 2006-09-04 23:59:02

Romashka wrote:

Yes, but how b) is used by Linux distributors? The key words are written offer. IMHO only a) is meaningful for most distributors, isn't it?

3a) means that the src is included when you download the binary package. AL packages don't do this at the moment. Distros can do this, but they generally don't.

3b) means that the distro maintainers keep hold of the srcs, and only distribute if asked. This means the distributor of a package needs to include some information detailing the written offer. Of course, some distros are more open here and make the srcs available freely via ftp, for example, or as an extra CD/DVD iso.

3c) isn't applicable since AL doesn't generally bundle existing binaries.

Romashka · 2006-09-05 00:06:08

arooaroo wrote:

3a) means that the src is included when you download the binary package. AL packages don't do this at the moment. Distros can do this, but they generally don't.

See my second post above. That cite extends 3a) for such situation. So AL does this as stated in 3a), as well as other distros.

EDIT: to make this more clear:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
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;
. . .
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.

So Arch doesn't need to comply with 3b) (and provide storage for sources for 3 years) because it can comply with 3a) - the only thing needed is to create sources repo on ftp.archlinux.org.

iBertus · 2006-09-05 14:26:43

arooaroo wrote:

However, do be clear that the motives shouldn't be to please the "wrath of powers" but to happily accept the conditions of the GPL code that Arch Linux is utilising in order to make it the successful Linux distro that it is.

I simply do not agree with all of the terms the GPL imposes. I do not see why Arch Linux or any other distro should have to mirror sources when program sources are already available for download elsewhere. It's placing a huge burden on distributors of "free" software.

dtw · 2006-09-05 14:43:11

..and on the internet itself. Let's face it, the GPL is hardly the perfect paradigm for "free" software. We should respect it where we are bound to it but I'm not against finding any and every loophole that can be exploited to benefit the greater good...and lets face it the greater good is the distribution of such software. Software without users is like a car without a driver, nice too look at but sadly pointless otherwise.

What about a server that mirrors every source tarball for the last three years? Then every single linux distribution could have a "pre-arrangement" with said site to supply the source, satifying the GPL for hundreds of distros in one fall swoop....

It's worth bearing in mind that every single person that supplies any GPL'ed binary pkg should provide the source also. That means I have to do it for Archie, AEGIS, my own repo and the KDEi repo...

arooaroo · 2006-09-05 15:02:54

iBertus wrote:

arooaroo wrote:
However, do be clear that the motives shouldn't be to please the "wrath of powers" but to happily accept the conditions of the GPL code that Arch Linux is utilising in order to make it the successful Linux distro that it is.
I simply do not agree with all of the terms the GPL imposes. I do not see why Arch Linux or any other distro should have to mirror sources when program sources are already available for download elsewhere. It's placing a huge burden on distributors of "free" software.

To be honest, I think the GPL has exceeded its lifespan and OSS is established enough that we can get away with more liberal licenses with Apache or BSD. That said, I don't think the FSF wasn't expecting every man and his dog to produce their own Linux distribution. I believe it was designed to protect OSS developers, and not necessarily the distributors.

GPL v3 is still in draft form. I've not actually read it yet, but perhaps distro maintainers should pipe up and add some input to v3 before it's finalised.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-09-04 23:01:29

[split] GPL discussion

#2 2006-09-04 23:15:54

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#3 2006-09-04 23:26:16

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#4 2006-09-04 23:34:01

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#5 2006-09-04 23:38:03

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#6 2006-09-04 23:38:46

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#7 2006-09-04 23:45:28

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#8 2006-09-04 23:47:02

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#9 2006-09-04 23:49:09

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#10 2006-09-04 23:59:02

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#11 2006-09-05 00:06:08

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#12 2006-09-05 14:26:43

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#13 2006-09-05 14:43:11

Re: [split] GPL discussion

#14 2006-09-05 15:02:54

Re: [split] GPL discussion

Board footer