Could many smaller Linux distributions be in violation of the GPL? That’s what Warren Woodford, the man behind the popular MEPIS distribution thinks. As detailed in Bruce Byfield’s excellent NewsForge story, “A GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distro“, Woodford recently ran afoul of the GNU GPL (General Public License) requirement that downstream distributors of GPL code are obligated to provide source code to users in an easily accessible format.
Here’s how the GPL works: if you modify a GPL licensed software (let’s call it linux-src.tar.gz) and distribute it in binary form as linux.bin, you don’t have to immediately make both available for download.
Providing linux-src-modified.tar.gz is only required when asked by anyone who you distributed linux.bin to. So, did any distribution refuse to provide the source code when asked? The answer is NO, so this article is completely useless.
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.
He uses the ubuntu repositories, I don’t see why he has to provide the sources of those packages? As long as his own repositories have the sources of everything that’s in his repository it should be fine I think.
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?
Let me rephrase that: isn’t having the source code available for anyone to use the definition of freedom? Why do I need extra restrictions to ensure something I already have?
Not restrictions but requirements.
HAVING… yes exactly you have to HAVE the code for something to be free software, so we have requirements in place that ensure free(dom). To ensure the code is available, the exact code, and it is right there with the binary.
Without requirements would mean the software wasnt free at all.
That doesn’t even make any sense. First of all, I’m assuming you’re talking about the source being available for derivative works. Otherwise, you don’t need to use the GPL to make sure your code is free–you could just release it as public domain or some other open source license. Why do I want to restrict my the users of my code by forcing them to release the source code as well if I’m already doing that?
uh which FREE are you talking about? And what are you talking about “restrict your user to release the sourcce code”? It isn’t about a USER having to release source code it is about warren made a distro and as such has responsibilities and requirements that the GPL spells out and the reason those requirements exist is to ensure that free software remains free. Which would be the same as my earlier statement of “ensure freedom”!
You brought up “restriction”. I spoke of “requirements”. Requirements which ensure freedom of software. Without requirements ensuring those freedoms you would not have those freedoms. Whats so hard to understand? GPL covered software is more than open source it is FREE and requirements in place ensure that it will always be FREE. Oh, i give up
You want it to always be free? Why don’t you just release it in the public domain? Unless, oh, I see, you’re talking about derivative works. So, why do I care what people do with my FREE code?
(By the way, restrictions == requirements)
If you picked the GPL you are showing you care about it always being free and not closed up, not hidden, not a confusing maze to navigate to get source code, not a bunch of hoops to jump thru to get source. Not talking about derivitive works at all.
I agree with you, if you dont care that next week your code is just as free, if you dont care that someone can take your work and close it up and not share, if you truly dont want to ensure freedoms then pick one of the other open source licenses. I personally believe that something like that is more “free” than the GPL since their arent requirements to ensure freedom of the software and the changes and so forth. But I will accept requirements since it is those EXACT requirements that allowed me to enjoy the code.
restriction
# The act of restricting.
# The state of being restricted.
requirement
# Something that is required; a necessity.
# Something obligatory; a prerequisite
Oh man this code is great, look what I did with it, now I am selling it, and I got it for free and no you cant have any or you have to go find it yourself if it still exists somewhere and if not then too bad. <- that is truly free or at least for the person that snagged it. It sure doesnt do much for ensuring freedoms does it.
If you picked the GPL you are showing you care about it always being free and not closed up, not hidden, not a confusing maze to navigate to get source code, not a bunch of hoops to jump thru to get source. Not talking about derivitive works at all.
Or you could just put the source online…
I agree with you, if you dont care that next week your code is just as free, if you dont care that someone can take your work and close it up and not share, if you truly dont want to ensure freedoms then pick one of the other open source licenses. I personally believe that something like that is more “free” than the GPL since their arent requirements to ensure freedom of the software and the changes and so forth. But I will accept requirements since it is those EXACT requirements that allowed me to enjoy the code.
free·dom
n.
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
I don’t care about your twisted view of how people should license software, but don’t go claiming enforcing restraints is freedom, because it’s not.
Oh man this code is great, look what I did with it, now I am selling it, and I got it for free and no you cant have any or you have to go find it yourself if it still exists somewhere and if not then too bad. <- that is truly free or at least for the person that snagged it. It sure doesnt do much for ensuring freedoms does it.
You’re free to do so in many open source licenses–of course, you’re not free to do so in the GPL. I’m not stubborn enough to enforce my views of “freedom” onto other people when I distribute my code–if I wrote it for the community, I’m going to let the whole community use it for whatever they want to do with it. Just the fact that it was useful is good enough for me.
I am impressed that you are that alruistic and dare I say noble to give without receiveing, to give without knowing you will get back, to give and make some huge corporation a fortune while they spit on you. That others benefit from your work but you will never benefit from theirs. I am really impressed that anyone is so inclined.
I personally will only use free software and I prefer that free to be GPL but I dont beat someone over the head about it including my wife.
But those issues are seperate from what we are discussing.
I never said people should only use the GPL. I never said I think that anyone that uses another license sucks! I thought we were discussing the article which is about IF you do choose the GPL or if someone makes a distro from packages that are GPL licensed then he should not whine when it comes to those requirements.
By the way I think your post makes my point – the GPL ensures freedoms. I didn’t say that it is the most “free” just that the GPL is about requirements that ensure freedoms. I didn’t say everyone should/would want this. I simply said that the requirements in the GPL ensure future freedoms.
So now you are going to call it restraints…???
like this restraint “no you cant have my code even though it incorporates your code” arent you restrained from getting the changes made to your work….sounds like restraint to me. How does the GPL restrain? The GPL only ‘requires’ not restrict not restrain only requires and those requirements are there to make sure you never have restraints, never have restrictions…
to give and make some huge corporation a fortune while they spit on you. That others benefit from your work but you will never benefit from theirs. I am really impressed that anyone is so inclined.
What? Have you even thought that through? The original source would always be available–just because a company decides to use it as a base for something doesn’t mean everybody’s going to ditch the open source version. If the company does improve on it, then good for them–they’ve helped the community by improving it. How is this “spitting on me” when it’s something I don’t mind in the least? In fact, I would encourage this, since it helps elevate the quality of the market as a whole.
I never said people should only use the GPL. I never said I think that anyone that uses another license sucks! I thought we were discussing the article which is about IF you do choose the GPL or if someone makes a distro from packages that are GPL licensed then he should not whine when it comes to those requirements.
Fine, I was just responding to you because apparently you had some confusion on my opinion.
So now you are going to call it restraints…???
Let’s see now: the GPL forces you to give away the source to any derivative works. That’s a restraint if I’ve ever seen one.
Use the GPL if you think that users should be able to get the source from the same place that they got the binaries. If you don’t mind making them jump through hoops to find the original source, which may not still be there, then use another license.
If you don’t mind supporting versions modified by other people, versions that you don’t have the source for, then don’t use the GPL or require that source be available from the same place that provided the binaries. That’s very generous of you. Not very practical, but generous.
It happened to RMS. That’s why he wrote the GPL. See the history of GNU Emacs for more details.
If you believe in freedom for programmers, then use any free license. If you believe in freedom for end users, then consider using the GPL.
If you want your code to be free, any free license will do. If you want your code to stay free, consider the GPL.
BSD code isn’t more free than GPL code, or vice versa. Each license focuses on slightly different freedoms, that’s all. It’s not a matter of amount of freedom, it’s a difference in direction.
There is no One True License. They all have warts. Pick the one you can live with. Some of the things that others see as problems with the GPL I see as positive. Some of the things that others see as positive about the BSD license I see as problems. I like most of both, and can find something to dislike in either. Engineering always involves trade-offs, and so do licenses.
“… 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.
EDITED: Forget “be” in first line, second paragraph
Glad you noticed! That missing “be” in the first line, second paragraph was driving me nuts.
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.
Sarcasm doesn’t work well on the Internet, Thom.
Byfield didn’t do his homework. He fell for Woodford’s ‘safe harbor’ idea without checking, as ‘safe harbor’ refers to an entirely different legal concept. What Woodford is reaching for is ‘estoppel’. He will fail, of course, because the issue isn’t his conscience but whether the copyright holders told him that he could violate the license.
Byfield also failed to note the distinctions between the subclauses of section 3. The simple solution is 3a: include the source with the binaries. 3b is a written offer to provide the source. 3c is a non-commercial exception which allows a pass-through to upstream. That covers me when I give away a copy of Ubuntu, and probably covers the creators of DSL and Knoppix, too.
But Mepis is a commercial distribution, so only 3a and 3b apply. Woodford shouldn’t be running a business if he doesn’t read the license that lets him distribute other peoples’ code. Don’t distribute copyrighted material without permission. Understand the contract or license that gives you permission. ANY and ALL licenses or contracts, not just the GPL.
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.
You seldom critisize Apple or Microsoft.
You know, and this is my final word on this, the funny thing is this: Apple fanatics claim I *only* criticise Apple, Linux fanatics say I *only* criticise Linux, SkyOS fanatics say I *only* criticise SkyOS, and now, a GPL fanatics claims I *only* criticise the GPL, and *never* anything else.
You see how utterly, utterly, utterly impossible the above is? You somehow think my critique of the GPL is a special case, that I single the GPL out. This is nonsense. Pure and utter nonsense.
Of course, you neglect to see when I’m positive about the GPL and GPL projects. But that’s fine, I’ve studied psychology for two years, I know the mechanisms at work. You can’t really help it
.
Edited 2006-06-29 14:53
and now, a GPL fanatics claims I *only* criticise the GPL, and *never* anything else.
#1 – I’m not a GPL fanatic
#2 – I haven’t claimed that you only criticized GPL.
#3 – I haven’t claimed you never criticize anything else.
You are being dishonest, Thom. It does not make you look good to use such amateurish techniques.
I haven’t seen you being positive about the GPL at all. I have however seen you being positive about GPL’ed projects, but not because of the GPL. That however would be weird, since projects should be deemed on their technical merits and not their license. I’m positive about SkyOS despite the proprietary license. And I’m not that positive about Gnome, despite the use of LGPL and GPL.
You being positive about GPL-projects does not prove your point in any way, no matter how hard you’ve studied psychology. Besides that, you aren’t the only one to have studied psychology for several years. Not that I doubt you are better at psychology than I am, but you are not that much better. And being good at psychology is no good, when you base your analysis on wrong data.
I will naturally give you an apology here, if you can prove you have been positive towards the GPL. But until then, I claim you let your bias against the GPL influence your choice of articles on OSNews. But of course, I do have an apology ready, the moment you prove me wrong.
I haven’t see evidence of SkyOS “fanatics” claiming you only criticize SkyOS. That would be quite weird, since you are close to being the #1 SkyOS fanboy
(it does have several good qualities).
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.
What is so difficult about delivering the source? If the upstream delivered the source, just get them from the upstream and deliver them on the same media as the binary. If you have the binary, then you also have the source by the same GPL clause!
I don’t beleive any clause in the GPL says that the source must be in easy to recompile with easy to understand instructions. That would be quite time consuming in that case. The source must simply be there, so what is the big deal?
Let me first state in no uncertain terms that Mr. Woodford is not only clearly in the wrong, but that he is making a really big deal about what amounts to an extremely small effort in the interest of protecting free software. He even went so far as to claim that he literally loses sleep worrying about how he’s going to comply with the requirements of the GPL, so as responsible citizens of the free software community, we should reach out and try to help him get his 8 hours.
Let’s start by explaining that all he needs to do to comply with the GPL is to put a statement on the download page or in the release notes that says: “MEPIS will be glad to provide source packages upon request for any binary packages distributed by the MEPIS Project under the GPL.” As MEPIS is a small distributor, we can prevent some unnecessary nightmares by also informing him that MEPIS can even charge a reasonable fee for providing a download or shipped medium containing the requested source packages.
For the sake of his physical and mental well-being, I’m going to make sure that Mr. Woodford understands the license he’s using to distribute MEPIS. Considering how easy and non-expensive it would be to comply, it’s really a shame that he’s not getting a good night’s sleep.
However, we should be careful not to flood Mr. Woodford’s inbox with comforting advice on the provisions of the GPL, as it is possible to go to far with our therapy and trigger any latent narcoleptic tendencies he might have.
Well I think warren is a bit off but section three-key terms “Accompany it” also near the bottom…
“If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.”
Basically the idea of the GPL is this…
IF a user wants the source, he can EASILY get it! Not jump thru hoops, not chase around, not wonder where to get it, not have to download it if he ordered a cd via mail.
How does rBuilder somehow relieve you of this? If your software packages come from them then yes the source does but if you use rbuild to make YOUR distro and YOU distribute that distro via online order then YOU are still responsible. This is a crazy article….
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?
The fact that it costs money would immediately deter practically everybody, especially if also accompanied by a note suggesting that they can download it for free elsewhere.
Sure, it’s awkward, but it would be nigh impossible to design a license that would allow the ‘good guys’ to get away with it when we want to let them, but keep the evil megacorporations from stealing stuff somehow. So the GPL errs on one side of the line, big deal.
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.
Dunno if someone already quoted the GPL FAQ, but just in case, here it is the relevant part (taken from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferent… ):
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.
Freshmeat is forever.
I have to be missing something here. What’s so difficult about dragging a bunch of source tarballs into a directory on a server or a DVD/CD? Whether the GPL requirement is reasonable or not for small timers, what is it that’s keeping him up at night? It seems to be a small nuisance to me, and I read the article, so I must be missing something. Is it the space it takes up on distribution media? Bandwidth costs for a server?
Some people are givers, some are leeches abusing the gift. Some will never discover the joy of sharing too afraid someone else will have more success based on their efforts. It is not an easy step to take that GPL leap of faith, not sure it’s exactly greed but it is a big part of human nature to compete that makes some hold back, we all strive to be the alpha dog. Tough lesson learning to let go, I sympathize but you’ll feel so much better afterwards.
Maybe we can all get some lumber and build a whole bunch of crosses and label them with operating systems and licenses and we can just all climb up on them and nail ourselves to them to prove our faith. Just remember to deny you’re a zealot three times before the cock crows.
no….. that is a requirement….
Right I shouldnt of said spitting on YOU since you dont mind someone being able to take and take and take and take and you never benefit from it, the community doesnt benefit from it, the people too poor to afford the costly version and no copying allowed doesnt benefit.
I personally would view it as thumbing their nose at me or spitting on me because they can take my work and benefit from it but yet I can not do the same from their work.
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.
this isnt the first time mepis has been contacted if I remember correctly and he didnt respond well that time either…
And I am not arguing which is better or what the definition of freedom is… I am defining what the GPL is and what it stands for and that it has requirements to protect freedom. The requirements protect the freedoms that the GPL was specifically created to ensure. I never said one was better than the other, or anything like that I simply stated a fact and that fact is that the requirements ensure freedoms.