A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

Misfit138 · 2008-05-21 22:33:08

Beranger wrote:

This is the risk of hosting a forum on the official site, when the moderators and the overlords don't apply any procedure to clarify the assertions formulated on the forums.

Actually, I clarified by stating:

Misfit138 wrote:

Opinions are opinions, after all, and Aaron is aware of the issue.

All is well that ends well. Diplomacy and tact are powerful tools.

bji · 2008-05-21 22:55:55

Hello, I'm the moron who shot his mouth off in the bug report on this issue. I'm sorry I wrote so much text on this issue, but it's something I care a great deal about and I felt like I needed to be very descriptive and explicit because it is such a complex topic and so many contradictory statements had been made on the forums on this issue. One thing I should not have done, and wish I hadn't, was assumed that phrakture wasn't being sincere when he offered to send source CD's to anyone who asked for them.

Anyway, I also found the blogger's article difficult to read, and disappointing because it contains so many unnecessary ad hominem attacks. I don't quite understand what he intends to accomplish by calling people idiots all the time.

I think that this section of the GNU License FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html is very relevent to this discussion:

Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".
Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available.

I think this very clearly addresses whether or not Arch's mechanism of linking to sources is acceptable; it's not. If the Arch team had made specific arrangements with the sites that host the sources that they link to, then that would be different; but clearly they have not. And obviously, the Arch developers agree and are working to come into GPL compliance which is great.

To respond to those who have suggested that these requirements from the GPL are 'stupid' or 'wrong' or 'outdated' or whatever, read that second paragraph in the FAQ item again. Quite simply, if you want the privilege of redistributing GPL'd binaries, then you have to take the responsibility of making the corresponding source available. And this responsibility can't just be foisted off on some random third party that hosts the sources, you have to host them yourself (or keep a copy that you make available upon request, which in these days of the Internet is much, much more trouble than just hosting them on a web or ftp server). I think this is a perfectly reasonable requirement for redistributors to have to adhere to.

The Arch team has already replied that they are working on it, so the above isn't mean to imply that they are not or that this GPL compliance issue is not just a temporary speed bump on the road to Ultimate Arch Awesomeness. But I guess if we're going to keep talking about this topic, I hope that we can talk about the issues of GPL compliance and why it's a good thing instead of focusing on a blogger and how we don't like the way that he delivers his message.

Last edited by bji (2008-05-21 23:35:07)

catwell · 2008-05-22 00:54:21

What Béranger says is technically right. That's one of the reasons why I don't like the GPL as a license. If you want to make a binary mirror on some server, you have to buy twice the space because you're distributing binary packages.

This kind of terms, if they become enforced, will deter people from making binary distros. It would solve the problem if Arch just distributed PKGBUILDS... but less practical too. And ironically, it would put an extra load on the original servers, because everybody would need download the source. Exactly the opposite of what the GPL aims at (wider, easier, durable distribution of the software, including the source code).

So, I think those who talk about the spirit of the law aren't wrong. If Arch has the means to provide a source mirror, then it's great, but don't expect all the mirror providers to do so, although the GPL would require them to.

And yes, I prefer more permissive licenses (like the BSD license) to the GPL. Béranger seems to love the word "parasite", but Linux can include BSD code (and it does, a lot) and BSD can't include Linux code, because of licensing issues. Tell me, who's the parasite ?

Last edited by catwell (2008-05-22 00:58:22)

Cerebral · 2008-05-22 03:02:53

kensai wrote:

Thanks Beranger for in your stupidity you made Arch Linux have the sources available, or actually work on getting them available. I wonder what will be next, when you need to feel that somebody is visiting your poor trollish blog. What will you take on next? Aaron Griffin's capabilities to lift a car over his head? Are you going to question that?

AANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND thread closed. I'm surprised you didn't take my warning seriously, Kensai. I said stop attacking him, and you call him stupid and trollish.

Arch Linux

#51 2008-05-21 22:33:08

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#52 2008-05-21 22:55:55

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#53 2008-05-22 00:54:21

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

#54 2008-05-22 03:02:53

Re: A special broadcast for Arch Linux aficionados

Board footer