OSNews

That depends.

The GPL clearly states that the users must be notified of the possibility of getting the sources.

The article is somewhat unclear, but as I understand it, the problem is that these distributions do not have sources of their own binaries. At least not in a way that users can acquire in any way. That is a problem.

But the article made it sound like it was a GPL-violation if you couldn't downloade the sources from the distributions websites, and that is clearly a misunderstanding. And the distributors are allowed to charge for delivery of the sources, especially if they don't charge for delivery of the binaries.

Sooo.. basically a very weird article.

EDITED: Forget "be" in first line, second paragraph

Edited 2006-06-28 23:02

Wait a minute... I though I was correct in my understanding of the GPL redistribution requirements, but according to MEPIS, the FSF doesn't agree with my interpretation of the license. In fact, after rereading the text of the GPL once again (as I do every night before bed of course), I simply cannot locate the provision that imposes the binary redistribution restrictions that MEPIS claims the FSF is enforcing.

Apparently, the FSF is claiming in its letter to MEPIS that, if they distribute binary packages under the GPL via the Internet, then they must also distribute the source packages over the Internet. This requirement might be a part of the FSF's agenda for GPLv3, but it is simply nowhere to be found in the GPLv2 license under which MEPIS's binary packages are distributed:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php

Look at section 3. In particular, part 3b. This seems pretty clear to me. There is no requirement that redistribution in source form must be done using the same medium as used to redistribute in binary form. It simply requires that the medium used to provide source code upon written request be one which is customarily used to distribute software. Both the Internet and CD/DVD disks qualify as customary media for software distribution by any standard. Further, there is explicit permission granted to redistribute source code by written request only.

I would think that the FSF would be the most knowledgable folks concerning the nitty-gritty implications of the GPL. However, it certainly seems like either the FSF is wrong or that MEPIS isn't accurately describing the letter they received. In fact, the Newsforge article reflects a more truthful representation of the GPLv2 than does the MEPIS blog. I think MEPIS is dealing with this situation is the worse possible way by sensationalizing the issue and by most likely misrepresenting the demands of the FSF.

The part of the Newsforge article about the complications surrounding part 3c was particularly troubling. This provision allows noncommercial distributors to avoid distributing source code if they make an agreement with their upstream distributor to distribute source code and if they accompany their binary packages with the terms of this agreement. The author got a leader of the Fedora Core Project to give a laundry list of reasons why they would hesitate to make such an agreement with a noncommercial downstream distributor. None of these reasons make any sense.

The first reason is that they are concerned that downstream won't contribute modifications upstream, and they note that downstream should have to distribute the source code if they modify it. Well, of course!! That's required by the GPL. The redistribution allowance specified in 3c only applies to binaries that have not been modified downstream. The second reason centers on the reluctance to accept legal responsibility for the downstream modifier. Well, the GPL disclaims any legal responsibility for the code itself, and as for licensing compliance, if downstream modifies the code, then 3c doesn't apply and upstream can't be held responsible for distributing the source. Finally, they mention cost as a factor, presumably ignoring the fact that they can recoup the cost of distributing source code by charging a reasonable fee. More FUD from our own community!!

This has to stop. Someone needs to set this issue straight and curb the FUD that's being perpetrated by our own community leaders. The GPL is what it is. There are a couple notable grey areas, but the issues at hand are pretty straightforward... if you actually bother to read the license.

Because Woodford distributed the binaries under the GPL.

It's simple. Anyone who uses the GPL to distribute binaries must also offer the source. If Woodford wants someone else to provide the source, then he should also have them provide the binaries.

He has the source. Why didn't he offer it?

He did.

He shouldn't need to offer it--it was already available.

Honestly, this is one more reason I dislike the GPL.

You dislike the GPL because some people can't read it?

No, I dislike it because it imposes a lot of strict requirements in the name of "freedom."

No, I dislike it because it imposes a lot of strict requirements in the name of "freedom."

So does democracy.

#1 - GPL allows you to distribute binaries only.
#2 - If you distribute binaries only you have to give them the option of getting the sources from you. You can charge for that if you want to.

How hard is that to understand?

Apparently somebody's itching for an argument--none of that has anything to do with what I said. I never said it was hard to understand, all I said was that I dislike the GPL because it imposes so many restrictions.

Well, I am itching for an argument, but mostly with Woodford. Sorry if I took that out on you.

I disagree with you about the effect of the GPL, but reasonable people can disagree about the merits of each different license. What I hope we can agree on is that anyone who uses someone else's work should honor the license that granted them permission to do so.

Keep in mind that the restrictions come from copyright. What the GPL, BSD, and other Free licenses do is give you permission that you wouldn't otherwise have. Where Free licenses differ is which copyright restrictions they remove; none add any restrictions.

Yes exactly! To ensure freedom means you have to enforce some requirements because as we can see a lot of people would not go to the lengths they needed on their own to ensure freedom so I for one am glad we have those requirements.

btw-It wasn't forced on him or anyone....

Why do you need to "ensure the freedom" of something that's already open source?

isnt it obvious?

"... it was already available."

He can't count on that. If you get binaries from him, you shouldn't count on that. How do you know that the versions match between Mepis binaries and Debian source?

The binaries and source must come from the same place, that's the only way to control availablity. If Woodford wants to distribute binaries, then he needs to provide source. If he'd rather point to Debian for the source, then he should point to Debian for the binaries.

Upstream providers do disappear. The GPL keeps the trouble from that from being a bigger problem than it might be. That's why I like the GPL. Those clauses that some complain about exist for good reason - the not only make the code freely available, they *keep* it freely available.

The GPL is a sweet deal. You get to distribute other peoples' work, and the only requirement is to pass it on under the same terms as you got it. Yet there are always those who complain. Somehow, the terms that required Debian to make source available to Woodford are a burden when applied to him. What happens when Woodford says to go to Debian for source, and Debian says to go to the authors? The source was already available, as you say. Of course, he'd have to search all over the Internet, apply patches, do QA, package the results, and a ton of other work.

But he doesn't have to do that because of the GPL. Debian is required to provide the source for any binaries they distribute under the GPL. So is he. He can use Debian because of the GPL. If other people didn't comply with GPL, he'd have nothing.

"Somehow, the terms that required Debian to make source available to Woodford are a burden when applied to him."

Yes, excellent summary, hits the nail on the head. We should all write to Woodford and copy this post to him, and we should all stop using Mepis until he grows up and meets his legal obligations.

He orginally never released the sources for Mepis in the beginning. Weather he was ignorant of the GPL at the time or he didn't care is debatable.

He's upset so he want's others to feel his pain I guess

I concur, I think that guy Woodford has serious problems.

Hey... I fixed it less than a minute after I pressed the "Submit comment" button.

Note to myself: Please do read my own comment before I submit the comment.

You shouldn't be surprised though.

Thom's antipathy towards the GPL is well-known.

If you think for a change, you'll see that, as is often the case, the summary is not written by me, but by the linked website.

Edited 2006-06-29 08:00

I know that and I can see that.

But the article wouldn't be posted, had it not been for your antipathy towards GPL. Do I really have to post the nonsense you've written about GPL at different sites?

Back off, Thom.

But the article wouldn't be posted, had it not been for your antipathy towards GPL.

How is this article anti-GPL? This article got posted EVERYWHERE, also on SLashdot. Now, you're not going tell me Slashdot is anti-GPL, right?

Back off, Thom.

What, you make false claim about me, and you're telling ME to back off?

This is weird.

How is this article anti-GPL?

The article is anti-GPL because it is pure FUD from start to end, and you know that. That's why you linked to it, despite the fact it wasn't submitted.

There have several such occasions recently. Looks like you're stepping up your war against GPL.

You do not link to articles about GPL unless they are of a trolling nature or controversial in other aspects.

What, you make false claim about me, and you're telling ME to back off?

I can just visit the SkyOS board. The nonsense you've written there is almost funny. Or I can take a look at articles at OSNews related to GPL and which has been linked by you - usually without having been submitted by anyone - or the lacking will in you to link to articles, submitted in response to articles linked to by you.

It draws a pretty clear image, Thom. And it fits well with the fact that you claim not to be neutral at all in your choices, so you might as well admit it, instead of putting forth contradicting statements.

Let me restate my question, as you keep avoiding it: Slashdot linked to this story as well. Do you really want to argue that Slashdot, of all places, is anti-GPL?

And yes, I have certainly been critical of the GPL, I will not deny that. Just as I am full of critique for Apple, Microsoft, and whatever. It is my good right-- it is my job. If you cannot handle critique... Fine by me, not my problem. Just don't go accusing me of biases just because your own bias regarding the GPL is blocking your view.

But whatever, I'll add anti-GPL to my list of biases. I kinda lost count though.

No, I don't consider Slashdot to be anti-GPl. Nor do I consider you to be anti-GPL due to posting this article.

What I do claim is that you posted it due to your antipathy towards the GPL.

You are - in your own words - biased against the GPL. You state that quite often here at OSNews as well as in the SkyOS forum.

I'm not claiming you to be anti-GPL - you have admitted that so many times, so that's not the debate.

The question is whether or not your bias against the GPL leads to more anti-GPL stories at OSNews. I say it does.

You seldom critisize Apple or Microsoft. It happens sometimes, less than a dozen times a year. And never in a way close to that of your anti-GPL feelings.

My view isn't blocked. You know very well that the GPL contains elements that I'm not too happy about, and that I prefer other licenses for certain things.

In regard to licenses my bias is not for any particular license, but for all open source licenses.

I am obviously biased towards open source licenses, but I don't prefer one over the other. Different problems require different solutions, and sometimes I prefer other licenses than GPL.

You know that very well, Thom.

To indicate that you are quoting someone else, there's a standard convention called, remarkably enough, quotation marks.

The words appeared under your name, Thom, and without any indication that they aren't your words. Failure to mark quoted material is plagiarism.

There are many styles for marking quotes, but they all make a visible distinction between quoted and unquoted text. Where's that visible distinction, Thom?

A Managing Editor should know how to quote.

We quote articles. We quote, well, direct quotes. We do not quote news items. That is normal, acceptable behaviour on websites as well as the normal press (do you see newspapers quoting AP releases?).

Read all about it here: http://www.osnews.com/meta/read.php/1130513705/quoting_articles_&_m...

There.

If I could vote I would give you all of them! Thank you! People whine about the GPL AFTER they produce works that fall under it. I dont get it. It is a simple license, easily understandable and for those having trouble it even has a FAQ and if you email the FSF or even RMS himself you will often get a reply. He manages the server space for his distro I think he can manage it for the source!

I find it to get a little thick when you start linking to gpl libraries and the such and what about using gpl code in your web site? Someone could argue you are distributing it since people view your site, but you aren't giving them binaries so it doesn't apply?

There are cases when it isn't so cut and dry.

huh?

I find it to get a little thick when you start linking to gpl libraries and the such

It's still easy to understand. Dynamic as well as static linking makes the entire package GPL.

and what about using gpl code in your web site? Someone could argue you are distributing it since people view your site, but you aren't giving them binaries so it doesn't apply?

That's bullshit and you know it! Using GPL'ed code in your website does not equal distributing according to GPL v1 and v2, and therefore you do not have to release sources at all.
It'll be different with GPL v3.
The fact that some morons could argue that using GPL'ed code on a website equals distribution does not mean that the GPL is difficult. It only means that those persons are ignorants or simply out to troll.

[deleted]
Never mind :-)

Edited 2006-06-29 10:29

It's too bad that you don't want people reading about the FSF's antics, but that's OK, because most "open source" people already know about them.

Exactly....
Would this keep you up at night? I dont think so. He makes it seem so onerous. Lest he forget that those same requirements are EXACTLY what allows him to have source available from debian/ubuntu in order to create his distro which makes him money but he isn't willing to provide the same.

> The GPL specifically allows you to charge for
> distributing the source, so surely it's possible
> for these small Linux distros to offer to mail out
> CD's with the source code on them to people who
> request it?

That's not what the GPL states, the GPL states that the sources have to come from the same place as the binaries. You can't let people freely download binaries and charge for sources. You can, however, charge for both binaries and sources, but you can't charge more for the sources than for the binaries.

The relevant GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee ):

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

Freshmeat is forever.

Well this is the crux of the argument. i have opinions on these licenses but they're not particularly emotional or strong. I like the GPL because of the community its built, and I've been a huge beneficiary of software released under this license as a user.

Ultimately though I have never really understood the idea that there's one license that's simply superior in a metaphysical sense to the other. Shouldn't this be up to the developer?

If you're a developer who wants to release a viral package out there, watch it fork and be modified and extended and so on, I don't see why anyone else has any kind of right to get upset at you. It's your choice; you released it under the GPL, and people can either use that package or not use it given those terms.

Likewise for developers who like the BSD sense of things. What ground does an individual have to stand on criticizing the choice of this license? The developer wrote the software, he makes this decision to essentially free the software from restrictions, where people can take it, and do what they want without this communitarian quality. Fine.

I just don't understand the emotionalism of it, or why someone would be critical of one license or the other; they have somewhat different purposes and intents.

In the case of the MEPIS guy, until someone explains to me what the big deal is about throwing a bunch of tarballs into a directory somewhere to comply with the GPL, I don't really sympathize. And I do ackowledge I must be missing something here, because the guy did seem tweaked about it, and if simply throwing source into a directory was all there was to it, I'd find it hard to believe that he'd bother to complain about this small nuisance.

But those are the terms - he chose to take GPL software and organize it into a distro and release it. The terms are the terms. He's free to build an OS on software released under different terms if he wants. I just don't get why you'd use GPL software and then complain about it.

The only person who's opinion counts is the developer, the creator, the innovator. I love that it will evolve constantly and always be openly available to be extended by virtue of the source code being available. That's my view as a user, but I sure would feel awful presumptuous about saying, "You, developer, your license sucks!" I definitely like the idea of the GPL maybe because I'm steeped in a far more property-oriented, consumerist world, and it's a breath of fresh air, but it's hardly an opinion that really matters until and unless I actually release something of value to the public.

As for freedom, well, they're both free licenses, with different definitions. Freedom has always had conditions and restrictions, and the best kind of restrictions prohibit measures to degrade or otherwise destroy freedom itself. If you've ever taken a political science class, especially one in political philosophy, you'll know that there is no single definition of freedom.

Positive and negative rights, freedom from vs. freedom to - "What good is freedom - is it freedom at all, if you have no means of exercising it?" are all questions people have been thinking about now for thousands of years. People don't even agree on whether free will exists.

Arguing this semantically, "Accept my definition of freedom!" is so unbelievably pointless. There is no consensus on this and there never will be. One of the first questions you ponder in political science, for example, is "Does one have a right to enslave oneself?" - this is political science's equivalent of "Can God make a rock so big that he himself cannot move it?" You may have a strong opinion on what freedom means, but it is not by any definition universal. It took me a long time to understand other viewpoints of freedom - not in the sense of software licenses, but in the sense of capitalism vs. socialism or individualism vs. egalitarianism. I still have my own opinions but I don't think the opposition is completely looney either. This extends to my attitude about software licensing. It's not a moderate or mushy opinion - it is a firm, decisive acknowledgement that there's more than one fair way to look at something.

At a bare minimum, does freedom entail you to freely set the terms of a contract? "You can take this software and do what you want but the terms of doing this is you have to release the source code of your modifications. You are free to accept these terms or not." is to me no less free than "Do whatever you want with this." In one case, the community's freedom is secondary to that of the individual, and in the other, the situation is reversed, but in both cases, someone loses - or more accurately, has the potential to lose something (curious for example, of all the BSD projects out there, how many companies have made universally useful modifications to publicly released BSD software and kept the source all to themselves?

I'm sure it's happened, but how often? All the stories in the past year about the lack of source code I've seen have had to do with GPL violations in SOHO routers and the like. In fact, for me the only really annoying lack of source code has been for stuff like blobs (Nvidia drivers), Flash, which is still crappy on Linux, and stuff like that, none of which (I don't think - I haven't checked so I'm not being insistent on this) is based on BSD code.

All human relationships are in some sense - and I'm not making a political science argument or anything formal here - based on implied (if not written) contracts, from marriage to parenthood to employer-employee relationships.

Agree to the contract or don't, but as long as the terms are clear and unobfuscated - and neither the BSD nor GPL license is obfuscated or filled with sucker clauses - don't whine when you're expected to abide by them, period. There's no counterargument like software is some essential publicly-owned resource like water or air and therefore shouldn't be subject to contractual obligations, stipulations, and so on.

I'm sorry the MEPIS guy misunderstood the terms, and it was a reasonable mistake he made; I doubt anyone's upset at him for it.

I can see having an individual preference but I don't get why you'd get angry or snipe at someone who had a different viewpoint about what to do with the software that they, themselves created.