Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Aug 2006 09:09 UTC, submitted by anonymous
GNU, GPL, Open Source "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.
Thread beginning with comment 155845
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: GPL Police
by j-s-h on Fri 25th Aug 2006 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL Police"
j-s-h
Member since:
2005-07-08

Note that I said GPL "Police", straight from the "summary".

The "summary" was one-sided. Are you too blind to see that? Do I have to point out that it only links to one side of the story? Critical thinking is your friend.


Anyways, if you modify GPL-licensed code, you must conform to the GPL. He must conform to the GPL or take the binaries down. He could have uploaded the source to sourceforge, or any other Free software or open source hosting site for no bandwith costs. Calling the authors of the software GPL police makes as much sense as calling your neighbor a "dog police" when your dog shits in your yard and he complains about it.

Edited 2006-08-25 13:23

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: GPL Police
by twenex on Fri 25th Aug 2006 13:16 in reply to "RE[2]: GPL Police"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Well, you said "one-sided article," not summary, and it's not an OSNews article, but OK.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: GPL Police
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 25th Aug 2006 13:19 in reply to "RE[2]: GPL Police"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You'd have a point, if there actually were another side. Currently-- there is none, as there is no official reply yet. Once there is (if ever) we surely will report on it, as we always do (i.e. check the HD item on Vista).

Edited 2006-08-25 13:22

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: GPL Police
by deanlinkous on Fri 25th Aug 2006 13:26 in reply to "RE[4]: GPL Police"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

There is another side. It is clearly spelled out in the GPL and the guy was simply informed by matthew and philip that he wasn't in compliance. What other side do we need? Those guys are the copyright holders they have a right to inform someone that they are not acting in accordance to the license.

The cipherphunk website (original) is all the proof that anyone needs. You cannot offer a free download and yet charge for the source.

Is there another side to this?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: GPL Police
by j-s-h on Fri 25th Aug 2006 13:29 in reply to "RE[4]: GPL Police"
j-s-h Member since:
2005-07-08

From a link in the comments:

Hi,

I've noticed that you're providing kernel binaries at
http://64.71.152.24/dapper-binaries/ . As I'm sure you're aware, the
kernel is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2.
Under section (3) of the license, when distributing derivitives of this
code you are obliged to either

a) accompany it with the source code, or
b) provide a written offer to provide the source code on request for no
more than the cost of physically performing the distribution

Currently you are doing neither of these, and as a result are breaching
the license of the code. As one of the copyright holders of the code, I
would request that you conform to your obligations under the license.

This is not required for the X driver, as it is not released under the
GPL.

Thanks,
--
Matthew Garrett

Edited 2006-08-25 13:31

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: GPL Police
by mjg59 on Fri 25th Aug 2006 13:33 in reply to "RE[4]: GPL Police"
mjg59 Member since:
2005-10-17

You'd have a point, if there actually were another side. Currently-- there is none, as there is no official reply yet. Once there is (if ever) we surely will report on it, as we always do (i.e. check the HD item on Vista).

What, other than http://mjg59.livejournal.com/65927.html which was written some time before the Mepis article?

Reply Parent Score: 4