"The cipherfunk web site, which made extra packages available to Ubuntu and MEPIS users, was shut down in response to complaints from Ubuntu team members Matthew Garrett and Philipp Kern. It is my understanding they alleged that cipherfunk was not making modified GPLed source code available in a timely fashion. You can read about it the website." "Well, the GNU GPL states as part of Section 3 of the licence that I must provide source code on request for no more than the cost of physically performing the distribution. Given that the host this box is on actually costs me 110.95AUD every 30 days to run, 9.90AUD, as nice as that is - still will cost me over 100AUD to distribute the code at all." Update: As Matthew Garret pointed out in the comments, he wrote his side of the story on his blog.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
What do you suggest they should do when someone distributes their copyrighted work without permission, apart from sending a polite note (which is exactly what they did)?
1. Why do you feel that the FSF has anything to do with this? The issue here is between a couple of copyright holders and someone who is distributing their work without their permission. The only case where the FSF needs to get involved is when the FSF is the copyright holder.
2. What is there to negotiate about? The GPL is quite clear. Making an exception for Cipherpunk would require the permission from everyone who owns the copyright to any piece of code in Linux.
I'm sure Cipherpunk just misunderstood the GPL (which can happen quite easily if you are not a lawyer), so the only reasonable thing to do would be to send a polite note informing him of the situation.
BTW: that is why I'll never reselase anything I do under the GPL.
That okay. However, if you choose to distribute other people's code, you need to follow the terms of their licence, even if you feel that they are being unreasonable.
Member since:2005-10-17
Why did they not wait for the FSF to get in touch with Mepis?
Why? I'm one of the copyright holders.
Why did they not *negotiate*
I emailed Paul to say "You're not complying with the license. Would you mind fixing that?". What more negotiation was I supposed to engage in? I didn't ask Paul to take down the site or offer me compensation or anything like that.
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:
2006-02-05
I'd rather think those Philip and Matthew are bots than having to remind them what a HUMAN BEING is.
Why did they not wait for the FSF to get in touch with Mepis? (for example, 1)
Why did they not *negotiate*? (for example, 2)
Is having NO SOURCE CODE AT ALL and NO BINARIES and AN UNHAPPY DEVELOPER better than simply having NO SOURCE CODE? (for example, 3)
Those came without thinking... Sure, they must be either bots or ... ... ...
LINUX FOR HUMAN BEINGS... Have they understood the motto?
BTW: that is why I'll never reselase anything I do under the GPL. Better put things in the public domain or BSD them...
Edited 2006-08-25 09:54