Where are the GPL'd package sources?

arooaroo · 2006-09-04 22:08:30

Just browsing around the AL home page and I noticed that I couldn't see any repository for the sources (or information about how to acquire them) for the GPL'd packages that Arch Linux uses. Given all the drama with Mepis, it seems like a good idea to make it clear where the sources are in order to conform with the GPL license.

Romashka · 2006-09-04 22:15:03

What's the problem?
Every package has its own page where there is the list of all sources below the Sources: title.
Or did I miss something?
And what drama was with MEPIS?

arooaroo · 2006-09-04 22:26:12

Romashka wrote:

What's the problem?
Every package has its own page where there is the list of all sources below the Sources: title.
Or did I miss something?
And what drama was with MEPIS?

I'm afraid you did miss something. Anyone who redistributes a GPL'd licensed package is also responsible for making the source available directly - not relying on sources hosted by the project maintainers.

I know it seems silly, but that's the condition of the GPL. The fuss over Mepis was that they were busted by the GPL police because they thought what you thought.

Cerebral · 2006-09-04 22:37:00

arooaroo wrote:

I'm afraid you did miss something. Anyone who redistributes a GPL'd licensed package is also responsible for making the source available directly - not relying on sources hosted by the project maintainers.

So.. we need to mirror the sources for every GPL package we build? Ew.

Eliatamby · 2006-09-04 22:40:27

so having the source is available via abs is not enough? Since the package builds actually grab source packages from other sites?

Are you sure you're interpretaing the situation 100% correctly? There are plenty of distributions that do not offer the source directly...my understanding was that MEPIS were supplying modified debian software, and not providing the code. Are we supplying any MODIFIED packages -- I don't think so, they are all standard packages, so there is no need for use to redistribute the source unless we make any changes to a package's code

Romashka · 2006-09-04 22:43:56

I agree with Eliatamby.

kill · 2006-09-05 01:48:03

To clarify. Arch has two options to be GPL compliant:

First keep a copy of the source from which every GPL package was build on the ftp site along with the binaries. In this case the source only needs to be avaliable as long as the binary is avaliable.

Or provide a written offer for the source that is vailid for three years after distribution of the binary has ceased. This can be a cd or DVD where the requestor has to pay shipping and handling.

Some reading concerning distribution of source licensed under the GPL.
GPL FAQ

arooaroo · 2006-09-05 08:49:18

Kill, that sums it up nicely. Someone better tell the devs then.

Lone_Wolf · 2006-09-05 09:43:36

Seems like a feature request in flyspray would be the way to go for the official repo's. Anyone volunteering ?

iBertus · 2006-09-05 13:14:39

It would not be difficult to modify makepkg to create a .pkg.tar.gz and a .src.pkg.tar.gz when building. These packages could then be stored on the ftp in directories like current-src and extra-src. I personally feel that having the source linked and the license referenced in the PKGBUILD should be enough, but this seems like a good idea to prevent envoking the wrath of powers that be.

arooaroo · 2006-09-05 13:31:09

iBertus wrote:

It would not be difficult to modify makepkg to create a .pkg.tar.gz and a .src.pkg.tar.gz when building. These packages could then be stored on the ftp in directories like current-src and extra-src. I personally feel that having the source linked and the license referenced in the PKGBUILD should be enough, but this seems like a good idea to prevent envoking the wrath of powers that be.

Yeah, I think technically it should be fairly easy for the devs to integrate src package distribution on the same ftp server.

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.

tomk · 2006-09-05 13:32:21

Bug report here - the best way to get the devs' attention.

phrakture · 2006-09-05 14:46:26

arooaroo wrote:

Anyone who redistributes a GPL'd licensed package is also responsible for making the source available directly

As per section 3 of the GPL license, one copying a GPL licensed program may either: redistribute the source, provide the source upon request, or have express permission from the copyright owners to redistribute it without the source.

I will gladly back any request for source code. Feel free to email me directly and i will mail you a CD, for the cost of shipping and the CD itself.

Problem solved.

arooaroo · 2006-09-05 14:58:38

phrakture wrote:

arooaroo wrote:
Anyone who redistributes a GPL'd licensed package is also responsible for making the source available directly
As per section 3 of the GPL license, one copying a GPL licensed program may either: redistribute the source, provide the source upon request, or have express permission from the copyright owners to redistribute it without the source.
I will gladly back any request for source code. Feel free to email me directly and i will mail you a CD, for the cost of shipping and the CD itself.
Problem solved.

Cool. Except that this message is buried in the forums. This offer needs to be put some where more noticable, say the downloads page. But otherwise, it seems like the easiest solution, as I suggested eariler.

brazzmonkey · 2006-09-05 14:59:44

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.

+1
sometimes GPL just makes thing more complicated. i remember about this kororaa fuss as well : this xgl-enabled live cd use nvidia and ati proprietary drivers. binary modules are considered as a violation of the GPL.

oh, and phrakture is right about providing sources CD upon request. this should barely happen.

phrakture · 2006-09-05 15:06:20

arooaroo wrote:

Except that this message is buried in the forums. This offer needs to be put some where more noticable, say the downloads page. But otherwise, it seems like the easiest solution, as I suggested eariler.

Will do.

Personally, I find this thread a little inflammatory as it began with a rhetorical "where are the sources?" question with a known answer. The original concern has been addressed. Information will be added to the downloads page, and perhaps needs to be added to pacman's man page or other output. I am locking this thread now.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-09-04 22:08:30

Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#2 2006-09-04 22:15:03

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#3 2006-09-04 22:26:12

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#4 2006-09-04 22:37:00

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#5 2006-09-04 22:40:27

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#6 2006-09-04 22:43:56

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#7 2006-09-05 01:48:03

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#8 2006-09-05 08:49:18

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#9 2006-09-05 09:43:36

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#10 2006-09-05 13:14:39

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#11 2006-09-05 13:31:09

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#12 2006-09-05 13:32:21

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#13 2006-09-05 14:46:26

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#14 2006-09-05 14:58:38

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#15 2006-09-05 14:59:44

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

#16 2006-09-05 15:06:20

Re: Where are the GPL'd package sources?

Board footer