A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

funkyou · 2008-05-20 10:55:57

Well, not from me, but from beranger who seems to have a problem with arch...
I stumbled over this article some minutes ago, and it basically tries to tell us that Arch is not GPL compliant...

Read here for yourself, and be sure to read the linked stuff on that page too, for some more details...

Interesting

dolby · 2008-05-20 12:17:08

http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5355

Misfit138 · 2008-05-20 12:53:28

Thanks Dolby.

funkyou · 2008-05-20 12:55:50

Sorry, it seems i missed this all completely...
Didnt know that it was already a subject here...

dolby · 2008-05-20 12:57:18

No harm done. Plus some discussion never hurt anyone, quite the contrary

oliwer · 2008-05-20 20:32:24

For sure Archlinux is far from being a GPL system : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-syst … lines.html

But that is not necessarily a bad thing.

finferflu · 2008-05-20 20:51:55

I also didn't know anything about this, and I totally ignored the fact that you also have to host the sources, when distributing GPL'd software. I guess that's a quite good lesson.

Allan · 2008-05-20 21:04:16

You technically don't have to host the sources, but you have to give an offer to provide them (at a reasonable cost) to someone who asks for them.

finferflu · 2008-05-20 21:12:27

As far as I understand the linked post, it seems you have to keep the sources of older packages as well, so if the official mirror doesn't guarantee it'll host them for at least 3 years, you need to find a way to keep them in some way, isn't it?

skymt · 2008-05-20 21:12:28

Well that's ugly. A free software fanatic ("God RMS"?) with nothing to back his ravings but mindless bureaucracy. This is exactly the sort of attitude that's holding us back.

I noticed that the post makes no mention of contacting the Arch developers about this issue. That puts this clearly into the Troll Box in my mind.

skymt · 2008-05-20 21:16:26

finferflu wrote:

As far as I understand the linked post, it seems you have to keep the sources of older packages as well, so if the official mirror doesn't guarantee it'll host them for at least 3 years, you need to find a way to keep them in some way, isn't it?

The GPL only requires you to distribute the source for any GPL'd binaries you distribute. Since the Arch mirrors delete packages older than the current version (something Béranger seems to have missed [see quote] in his rush to stir up controversy), they only need to keep one version of the source.

Béranger wrote:

If, one year later from now, you need to make a change in a specific program, to fix or modify some behavior, and you don't want to take the risk of upgrading, what do you need? The EXACT source tarball that was used to build the binary you're using. But... you don't have it! It's not on the CDs/DVDs you've downloaded, it's not on any mirror of the Linux distro you're using! And the upstream, who only distributes source tarballs, has no obligation to archive all the versions, so the tarball of the version you're using is not available anymore!

finferflu · 2008-05-20 21:25:45

So, not really following how the ISO mirrors are synced, I guess the older ISOs are deleted when new versions come out. And that should happen on all the official mirrors, technically, right?

LTSmash · 2008-05-20 21:27:46

skymt wrote:

finferflu wrote:
As far as I understand the linked post, it seems you have to keep the sources of older packages as well, so if the official mirror doesn't guarantee it'll host them for at least 3 years, you need to find a way to keep them in some way, isn't it?
The GPL only requires you to distribute the source for any GPL'd binaries you distribute. Since the Arch mirrors delete packages older than the current version (something Béranger seems to have missed [see quote] in his rush to stir up controversy), they only need to keep one version of the source.
Béranger wrote:
If, one year later from now, you need to make a change in a specific program, to fix or modify some behavior, and you don't want to take the risk of upgrading, what do you need? The EXACT source tarball that was used to build the binary you're using. But... you don't have it! It's not on the CDs/DVDs you've downloaded, it's not on any mirror of the Linux distro you're using! And the upstream, who only distributes source tarballs, has no obligation to archive all the versions, so the tarball of the version you're using is not available anymore!

Maybe tarballs for pacman that include sources, patches and PKGBUILDs?
that could be easily implemented

skymt · 2008-05-20 21:30:16

I wasn't thinking of the ISOs. I just looked at a mirror, and there are currently three ISO versions up: the current stable, the previous stable, and the RC. We'd need to, at a minimum, provide the source to all GPL software on each version of the ISO.

finferflu · 2008-05-20 21:44:49

LTSmash wrote:

Maybe tarballs for pacman that include sources, patches and PKGBUILDs?
that could be easily implemented

Wouldn't that be the same as using a local mirror, instead than the official one, and linking them to it?

skymt wrote:

I wasn't thinking of the ISOs. I just looked at a mirror, and there are currently three ISO versions up: the current stable, the previous stable, and the RC. We'd need to, at a minimum, provide the source to all GPL software on each version of the ISO.

That's what I was thinking.

ornitorrincos · 2008-05-20 23:43:47

just for curiosity, Has he done something or he just writes a blog?

because if it's the second option, sincerely, I never believe someone who has never made something free talking about free software(it's just too easy to demand things to other people)

Onyros · 2008-05-21 00:02:10

Infuckin'credible, people still care about what Béranger writes?

He's an opinionated whiny blogger who's never contributed anything to Linux in general and FOSS as whole (check his Projects & Development link for further info on that) other than his opinionated verborrhea, so why should one care?

BTW, I loved phrak's response in that bug report.

Last edited by Onyros (2008-05-21 00:04:27)

Allan · 2008-05-21 00:45:42

Well, that bug report certainly got a bit carried away. Who was the idiot who posted the link to the blog in there?!

kensai · 2008-05-21 01:04:54

Béranger, LOL, I laugh in the face of him. He thinks he knows something about Linux, but he fails to do simple tasks, once he even said that Arch should have sshd on by default, because it was a good security practice. LOL. Please don't visit his site, he is just a Linux expert wannabe.

Last edited by kensai (2008-05-21 15:02:23)

cardinals_fan · 2008-05-21 01:51:27

Béranger takes a special joy in discovering GPL violations. It's part of his charm. Just smile awkwardly and leave as soon as his back is turned.

bender02 · 2008-05-21 01:55:02

In my opinion anyone who WRITES ALL CAPS in every other sentence or more often cannot be taken seriously.

SpookyET · 2008-05-21 02:00:52

That's bollocks. I love that PKGBUILD allows you to input http dot slash slash bla bla and it will take care of it. We will not host sources. Full stop.

jb · 2008-05-21 02:21:58

Beranger: Because angle brackets, the strong tag, and google translate gets stuff done!

Edit (Because I didn't want to double-post):

Our friend here may want to check out the concept of letter vs spirit of the law (wiki). I would venture to argue that Arch follows the spirit of the GPL and here's why:

The GPL, by definition, was written before any GPL'd programs were written. They were uncertain times for free software since it was so small and new; if the one person who wrote a specific free app disappeared with his code, then that's it; it's perma-gone. Today, however, GPL'd applications are much more prevalent on the internet, and the locations where they reside are much more permanent. In fact, I would wager my left *insert noun of choice* if *insert random app* sitting on SoureForge disappears any time in the next three years. And by providing links to this essentially permanent location of the source, Arch is following the Spirit of the Law of the GPL by providing what they believe to be a long lasting location for any version pulled from there.

Law is not as simple as he seems to imply.

Last edited by jb (2008-05-21 03:06:04)

robmaloy · 2008-05-21 07:08:23

oliwer wrote:

For sure Archlinux is far from being a GPL system : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-syst … lines.html
But that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Quote:
"There should be no repositories or ports for nonfree software"

debian has a nonfree repo

edit: should have read the whole page theres just "nonfunctional" stuff in debians nonfree repos which is completely ok with GNUs guidelines

Last edited by robmaloy (2008-05-21 08:11:11)

hennes · 2008-05-21 07:10:52

LOL

I struggled with that guy when I was using Zenwalk about exactly the same issue. He only rants in his blog and doesn't notify people directly, because as soon as he starts to pull up his crap in a forum with all his CAPITAL letters and stuff he gets banned. You can't argue that guy - I tried.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-05-20 10:55:57

A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#2 2008-05-20 12:17:08

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#3 2008-05-20 12:53:28

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#4 2008-05-20 12:55:50

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#5 2008-05-20 12:57:18

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#6 2008-05-20 20:32:24

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#7 2008-05-20 20:51:55

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#8 2008-05-20 21:04:16

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#9 2008-05-20 21:12:27

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#10 2008-05-20 21:12:28

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#11 2008-05-20 21:16:26

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#12 2008-05-20 21:25:45

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#13 2008-05-20 21:27:46

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#14 2008-05-20 21:30:16

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#15 2008-05-20 21:44:49

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#16 2008-05-20 23:43:47

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#17 2008-05-21 00:02:10

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#18 2008-05-21 00:45:42

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#19 2008-05-21 01:04:54

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#20 2008-05-21 01:51:27

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#21 2008-05-21 01:55:02

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#22 2008-05-21 02:00:52

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#23 2008-05-21 02:21:58

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#24 2008-05-21 07:08:23

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#25 2008-05-21 07:10:52

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

Board footer