Submitted by MEPIS, the popular Ubuntu-based Linux distributor, has finally released its distribution source code under the GPL. Warren Woodford, CEO, is not one bit pleased with being forced to do so. Woodford has long disagreed with some parts of the GPL. He recently ran into some trouble with its requirement that downstream distributors of GPL code are obligated to provide source code to users in an easily accessible format. Note: Starting today, Mepis stories will be posted in the Ubuntu category.
He recently ran into some trouble with its requirement that downstream distributors of GPL code are obligated to provide source code for upstream packages to users in an easily accessible format.
I.e. this is about Mepis not providing the source code for packages taken *unmodified* from Ubuntu.
I’m not saying he’s right, I just thought Thom’s summary was a bit unclear about that point.
Agreed. It’s not like the source code wasn’t released. It’s just that MEPIS only provided the source code they actually changed, and you had to go elsewhere to get unmodified source code.
More like a major correction. It makes a world of difference in how the argument is perceived.
No kidding. The summary makes it sound like Warren didn’t want to supply any Mepis code, when in fact he had already made his modifications available (what he wasn’t supplying being the parts of Ubuntu he hadn’t changed). I would’ve gotten the wrong idea if I hadn’t read an earlier article on the issue.
if he didn’t like gpl he shouldn’t have used gpl code- even “Grundgingly”
Why would it be under Ubuntu category ? I don’t get it, are Ubuntu news under Debian category ?
The latest SimplyMEPIS 6.0 release is based on Ubuntu Dapper.
The latest Ubuntu Dapper 6.06 release is based on Debian Unstable.
The latest Ubuntu Dapper 6.06 release is based on Debian Unstable.
Yes, and Debian in turn is based on SLS, so what’s your point?
At OSNews we categorise distributions which do not have their own db category in the category of their parent distribitution; in Mepis’ case, Ubuntu. Since Ubuntu has its own category, there is no need to categorise it in Debian’s. Only if there is no parent distro or the parent distro as well has no db entry do we categorise under the general Linux icon.
Soft Landing Systems 4lyfe!
No it isn’t. Even when Dapper was first released, it was based on Debian unstable from about 4 months earlier. Ubuntu is not a Debian derivative, it’s a fork of Debian’s release management procedure.
MEPIS is similarly a fork of Ubuntu’s release management. It is not a subproject of Ubuntu in the same sense as Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. Ubuntu offers upstream source distribution agreements (as permitted to noncommercial distributors via GPLv2 section 3c) to its subprojects, since they always use the same versions of binary packages.
MEPIS doesn’t use the same binary packages as the official Ubuntu projects, so they can’t offer source distribution services to ease GPL compliance. As I’ve noted before, Mr. Woodford is most likely misrepresenting the claims made by the FSF (the exact text of which he has never provided), since there is nothing in the GPLv2 that stipulates the requirements he claims the FSF is enforcing.
The GPLv2 does not require distributors to distribute corresponding source code in the same manner as the binary code is conveyed. MEPIS can comply with the GPLv2 by providing source code upon request, either by providing a gratis download or by charging for reasonable expenses necessary to convey the source code on physical media.
Mr. Woodford claims that the FSF is requiring MEPIS to distribute source code via a publically-accessibly network repository, presumably since that is the manner by which the binary code is conveyed. This is a requirement stipulated in recent drafts of the GPLv3, but there is no such provision in the GPLv2.
Something is fishy here, and the stench seems to be eminating from Mr. Woodford and MEPIS.
…do people, who would (presumably) be perfectly happy to comply with every crazy, legalese-laden proprietary s**tware licence out there, whinge when they are forced to comply with the GPL?
If you don’t like the GPL, nobody is forcing you to use it; instead, I suggest you make yourselves, and everyone else, happier by either complying happily, or sodding off. God knows it’s not impossible to contribute to, or start from scratch, a non-GPL’ed project.
Maybe because the GPL doesn’t have the corporate secrecy (or, in more generous terms, protections for the work you and your developers spent hours and dollars on) that some other licenses do.
It certainly doesn’t; however, it’s hardly as if that’s a well-kept secret.
He placed 2 dvd’s for sale with the code from the packages that are in the MEPIS live cd, right?
Because for all I know he didn’t had to copy the whole Ubuntu archive if he wasn’t including these files in the CD.
Especially because, at least for the version I tried, he didn’t mirror the Upstream repository.
Probably dates back to kindergarten or pre-school, some kids just never learn the joy in sharing. Those sort should not use GPL and either keep re-inventing the wheel or buy commercial libraries instead.
I call BS on this. Not only are you being childish yourself you’re also completely unwilling to see Woodford’s point of view. His problems with the GPL have nothing to do with “sharing” or “freedom”, his problems are entirely about the impracticality of certain GPL restrictions.
The GPL requires down-stream projects (like mepis being based on Ubuntu) to provide the full source tree for all binaries being distributed, even if 99% of the source on which the binaries are compiled is unmodified from the upstream. This is ridiculously hard to follow and do from some smaller distros who don’t have the resources to “share” several gigabytes of code. If he modified this much of it he should share it, but if all that code is available in an up-stream repository like Ubuntu, or even further up-stream in Debian Unstable there’s no reason whatsoever that he should have to shoulder that burden. He freely shares his changes, that’s the entire point of the GPL.
Your attitude is what bothers me so much about the GPL and FSF. I agree a lot with the philosophy, but RMS (and a lot of GPL trolls) shows the exact opposite of that philosophy in their stuck-up, holier-than-thou attitudes towards those who have differing opinions. Just looks the completely closed and non-democratic creation of the latest version of the GPL. It’s a perfect example of the hypocrisy of a large portion of GPL advocates.
I love the GPL, and I would love to see it grow and become a mainstream license, but the closed-minded elitists that control the GPL are running it into the ground by simply not listening the dissident voices. The most important part of FOSS is the open and organic process in which it grows and matures, if the basis on which this done is closed and esoteric then the GPL loses it’s weight in the eyes of possible converts and even many proponents.
I asked about this in the previous thread about MEPIS and its GPL problems.
DittoBox’s points seem valid to me now that I understand the issue better. When the GPL was conceived, providing source code via the internet exclusively was impractical or impossible (if folks wanting the source didn’t have a net connection); the idea was to provide this on some kind of magnetic media (I assume) because otherwise it would be unavailable to people who wanted it.
The issue here is, for anyone who has the kind of skills to want to modify or review source code, is googling for that source code really all that inconvenient?
I do not see what possible constructive purpose it serves to serve the same content repeatedly to comply with the letter of the GPL license. If the code is available, it’s available. That should be enough.
Serving redundant content wastes electricity, bandwidth, incurs unnecessary costs, and discourages development as a result. If the unmodified package sources are *not* available online, that would be a different matter altogether.
Provided the source is available to anyone online at another site, I don’t see the issue. Maybe the GPL ought to modified to accomodate this situation.
I usually find myself in at least mild agreement with Stallman and company, but this does strike me as ridiculous. The issue here is not making source code available, but REDUNDANT. I see no purpose in this so long as the source is publicly accessible somewhere on the net.
Googling does not equal, to me, causing hardship. If that’s the case, then everyone who provides voluntary support for Linux online needs to stop using the RTFM retort to simple newbie questions.
I hope readers will consider the crux of the matter here, which isn’t hording code, at all – but simply not bothering to redundantly provide code that is already accessible on dozens or hundreds of sites, via almost every file transfer method possible – torrent, ftp, http, etc.
This is a stupid an unnecessary conflict, given the real threats to the GPL by, say, SOHO router companies and the like. Unecessary bad blood.
Some people are more concerned that everyone plays strictly by the rules of the game than anything else. These people exist in most populations so to blame any particular group that happens to contain some of them for the whole thing is unduly harsh. Since the consistency of the application of (frequently simplistic) rules is the end goal, you cannot rely on anything else to dissuade them. The end result will alway be, “If you cannot accept the rules of the game, then do not play the game.”
If everyone had the outlook that Warren Woodford has you would have to track down source code from potentially tens or hundreds of different distribution if you only had to release source code you changed.
You would have to get source from Mepis for their changed files and assuming all other code was from Ubuntu you would have to get all Ubuntu modified code from them, but then they may have used some debian code without change and don’t distribute that themselves so now you have to get some code from Debian who may again have used code from another project unmodified so off you go again to find some more code.
Mepis could conceivably use code from 10 different distros but never actually modify any code but just consolidate the best file versions, so using Warren’s argument they wouldn’t have to provide any source and you have to figure out which files they used and where they got them then potentially single them out from other code.
This would be a convenient way to stop people using your work effectively which is one of the main reasons for using the GPL in the first place.
It seems to me someone smart enough and talented enough to do the things which Warren Woodford has done could see this within a few seconds of thinking about it. If the GPL did everything it does now except the one thing he takes exception to he probably couldn’t have created Mepis in the first place.
Edited 2006-08-01 20:48
But how many people modify source code that way? How many people modify hundreds of packages as they go along? I can understand modifying source here or there because something doesn’t work the way you want on your machine – I find it hard to believe that someone would have any reason at all to hunt down all of the code from “10 different distros” for the purpose of modifying or reviewing gigs of text – with one exception –
Someone basing a distribution off of MEPIS. Someone undertaking such a project surely can find the time to do the legwork to assemble the sources.
The question is apportioning the work of finding this source – I still don’t see any reason why developers should have to bear the financial cost and workload to provide commonly available sources just because it would be inconvenient for the rare individual who wants to review or modify ALL of the source for a distribution.
Has anyone ever done this? If so, why – I’m curious.
It is possible I am missing a scenario in which having all of the source code for a distribution in one place would be necessary, but I can’t think of one.
I don’t see what difference it make what the purpose you want the code for, you have make the license as clear and simple as possible and make it apply to all code which falls under it and to make exceptions, even if reasonable, simply invites abuse.
So although in this case the Mepis people can point to the files they changed and point out where you could get the files they didn’t it doesn’t change the fact that to have it any other way than it is opens it up to abuse.
Yes! Points++ for you.
The GPL already is a mainstream license. As such the requirements are well known and clearly stated right up front and I don’t think they’re asking too damn much for the great wealth recieved. Sorry but you don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the contract you feel like living up to, that would be both childish and selfish. Not to mention it becoming completely worthless with everyone producing binaries and what you have to accept as the same patches to some version of something you can’t find.
If one is light on resources then maybe it’s a bit foolhardy to take on a project one could never support according to the license of the materials used.
Could it be you just love getting a free software lunch greedy for more with proprietary binaries mixed in as another fair weather GPL supporter happy for what it gives but no sand for what must be sacrificed to make it happen? Those parts of the GPL you seem to hate are the parts that make it work.
If he disagrees with those parts of the GPL, he shouldn’t have used GPL projects as a basis. Whether these restrictions are a mistake made by RMS is irrelevant – you can’t simply ignore them just because you disagree.
Anyway, the MEPIS project doesn’t have to offer downloadable source code. Instead, they could simply package a set of CDs with all code on it, and sell it for a reasonable amount of cash (to cover their costs). Few would demand it anyway. The GPL allows that (it’s actually the “original” way of providing source code, since the internet didn’t exist like it does now when RMS started with GNU).
Not everyone complies with rules merely because they’re rules. Which is why the world is awash in people violating speed limits, distributing copyrighted material without permission, and ignoring EULAs just for starters. I mean if you really wanted we could spend days enumerating the enormous examples of people not engaging in dogmatic adherence to doctrine. Or to put it another way, do all of you people that post these “If X does not agree with Y, then X does not have to Z Y” comments think that your position is non-obvious?
Does anyone know why one would opt for Mepis when it sounds like it’s largely Ubuntu under the covers? What does it add to Ubuntu?
You could ask this about most derived distributions; every distribution starts with one thing – love and intent. Someone loves every distribution, for some reason.
I would ask the same question about Ubuntu, which is derived from Debian. I use Debian; there’s little that interests me about Ubuntu but I do know this – its philosophy has attracted a lot of followers and new Linux users, so it’s doing something right. I just can’t figure out what it could do for me, over Debian. I run unstable; everything “just works,” and I’ve not really wanted for anything (well, I run Gentoo as well, but that’s radically different).
There is a big refrain in the free software world: “Choice is good.” Maybe. But it’s not free (not in my opinion, anyway). Choice also invites redundancy and the dividing of resources. Imagine if there were only 5 distributions and every developer involved with the hundred(s?) of distros presently out there threw their efforts behind one of these five.
What would be the result? Possibly, more mature, feature-rich Linux distributions.
Alternately, conformity and monoculture. I have to wonder how many distributions form not out of providing a *needed* permutation of Linux but out of:
(*) The desire to lead, rather than be a team member.
(*) Personality conflicts with some or all of the people involved.
(*) Hey, I have a great idea, let’s make our own distro for fun!
Obviously many distributions provide a specific need or are developed according to a certain philosophy – small/embeddable, hardened, source-based, all-purpose, beginners, commercial, firewall distros…
A lot of them, well, I have no idea why they exist.
According to MEPIS’s home page:
SimplyMEPIS allows you to test and try the software before you install to your harddrive.
SimplyMEPIS includes the very best business and multimedia programs.
SimplyMEPIS features unique hardware detection and configuration superior to any others.
SimplyMEPIS is pre-configured for simplicity and ease of use, you’re productive in a matter of minutes, not hours.
Anyone here actually use MEPIS, and if so, why? What does it do that Ubuntu or another distro doesn’t?
Oh, I wasn’t implying that they “shouldn’t” be offering their version of Ubuntu (Debian)…just curious as to the value-add the Mepis folks bring to the table. I did see that list you referred to, but it seemed kind of…well, inconsequential and lacking detail.
I used to be a Libranet fan/user, and that was debian-based as well.
“Anyone here actually use MEPIS, and if so, why? What does it do that Ubuntu or another distro doesn’t?”
I’m not a Mepis user, but I did just finish helping a friend upgrade his Mepis installation. What I saw there was a distribution that came with the necessary multimedia codecs ‘out-of-the-box’, a quick installation, and a minimum of fuss and tinkering to get a fully functioning box that readily accomodated today’s prolific file formats.
I’m still a fan of Debian and Ubuntu, but Mepis had one of the fastest up-and-running installations I’ve ever seen.
harfooz
MEPIS is more like Kubuntu, except that MEPIS has the more traditional arrangement a root user and then user accounts – like Debian, RedHat, SuSe, Mandriva and other Linux distributions, and unlike Ubuntu/Kubuntu and Linspire which tend to use sudo.
I find MEPIS far less confusing than Ubuntu/Kubuntu in this regard.
I have also (personally) found MEPIS easier to configure than Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu.
I’m not a big fan of the GPL either, and agree with some of Warren’s sentiments. However, I don’t redistribute or license GPL code. I really don’t get this at all. Anyone thinking of using Mepis might want to deeply consider it first. Maybe I’m a minority, but an OS that doesn’t have easily accessable source code is all but useless to me.
Yes, I understand that it is cost prohibitive to share the source code for smaller projects. Since Google is interested in starting a source forge-like repository, why not let the smaller distributions host their code there? Google has enough space for the extreme redundancy associated with the GPL.
Sometimes there are costs with freedom. Mepis was built on free software. With that comes an obligation to continue to make it free. Hence the source code. One thing no one has mentioned: How would you like someone mooching off you. Lets imagine you build a distro and then pay to host the source. You are doing your best to comply with the GPL. No some little squirt comes along, bases a distro off yours, and says if you want the source go HERE. Should you have to host the source for some other distro or should every distro have to host their own?
Thank you! Warren makes money from his distro and then expects Ubuntu or whoever to foot the bill for supplying source? Why is that considered reasonable to so many? How would he feel if many others did the same to him?
Thank you! Warren makes money from his distro and then expects Ubuntu or whoever to foot the bill for supplying source? Why is that considered reasonable to so many? How would he feel if many others did the same to him?
it will be best if this kind of remark is postponed until all the facts are considered. the one who posted this does not seem to know that in Mr. Woodford is giving his changes in the source codes for free. It also shows ignorance on the fact that Warren pays for the proprietary softwares he uses so that every Mepis user can enjoy better benefits.
there is nothing wrong for charging a price if you cannot afford giving your product fully free, as long as you abide on all the rules.
that said, Warren should abide by the rules of GPL, be it practical or not. but to say that he is unreasonable for charging for something without consideration of what he has been through is no better than a quick and unfounded judgement.
The only fact to consider is that warren feels it is alright pointing upstream for source code thereby expecting someone else to foot the bill for source code.
Nothing to postpone or question.
What proprietary software is in mepis anyway, besides his own that is?
I never said there was anything wrong with him charging for his product. But to charge for his product while pointing upstream to a source that doesn’t charge is not only a leech but unethical to think that a free distro should provide his source code for his distro. Makes no sense…
It’s very late (or too early) but I cannot resist this general retort.
It seems to me that there is a lot of heat around FOSS development, the ideas of free and freedom, i.e., strong advocacy for these concepts in this context, but equally a lot of defensiveness and proscription whenever freedom is apparently abused.
A couple of analogies, just for pondering;
You are a sports addict. You enjoy your sport, but you are not a professional. To the best of your ability, you play as often as you can, using the best equipment you can afford.
One day, your display of sporting prowess attracts some interested spectators. These spectators then start to turn up to watch you specifically. They cheer you on when you are doing well, and commiserate with you when you do badly.
The question is, do you now stop playing the sport you love simply because some other people are deriving pleasure and benefit from what you do happily and freely? Do you pack up your kit and storm off home, vowing never to play your hitherto beloved sport ever again as a result?
Going further, one day, someone starts to organise these spectators, advertises when you are playing and begins to charge money to see you play.
Does this really have anything to do with why you started playing originally, would this really undermine your fundamental sentiments as to why you were motivated to play your sport in the first place?
Second analogy:
You have a social conscience. It is part and parcel of who you are and who you claim to be. You gift money to the needy. A wino approaches you, knowing this is the case. The wino asks for money. You may be right to think that the wino will go off and purchase more alcohol simply, and that you will not be improving their lot by giving the money. Therefore you refuse to give. But how does such a calculating attitude sit with your proclaimed intention to give to the needy? You cannot claim that the wino isn’t in a general state of need. You freely chose to cultivate and practice a way of life based on a well-honed social conscience. What have the wino’s actions got to do with this pristine statement of intent you have, uncoerced, based your life on?
Who is monkeying with freedom? The spectators, the huckster, the wino, or you?
mepis is definite a great distro with proprietary softwares that practically comes with it. before using ubuntu it already gained reputations of ease of use and had a considerable number of fans/users that even started the mepislovers.com.
using ubuntu, i think it will become better, not only now, but for future releases.
as for the source code. while i must (grudingly) agree that Mr. Woodford have to follow the rules of the GPL which in the first place allowed him to use the ubuntu code, i also take it impractical to redistribute gigabytes of the same codes which will be used by only 1 in a thousand downloaders and that such users will look into even less that 1% of the codes anyway.
with the GPL rules come priviledges and impracality. i guess more discussion on these have to be undertaken to maintain solidity in freedom, achieve practicality and perhaps attain simplicity.
The GPL is all about freedoms, here are two of them. Notice that both of them state exactly why source code availability is required.
# The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
# The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Providing source is in no way demanding, onerous, or a burden. How much does a couple gig of space on a server cost? If nobody wants it then there is no bandwidth used.
You are welcome to charge for source distribution but how you distribute it determines the amount that may be charged.
Of course the whole thing is silly. I choose to eat at McDs and then complain that I am eating at McDs???
Can we please define what “multimedia codecs” means? Can we make a list or links to files or something that specifically defines what we mean by “multimedia codecs” and then we can truly compare what one distro will play and the others won’t. Debian has great multimedia support but depending on what you want you may have to install some packages. Not sure if that counts as out of the box or not?
I’m probably missing something here, but wouldn’t an easier way to comply to the GPL be to simply put up a small notice: “If you want the rest of the source, contact me. I’ll charge you for expenses, burn it on some CD’s and snail mail them to you”.
Not like anyone would want to do that as long as ubuntu is out there anyway.
Thats just it! He does exactly that now. I think I seen that you can get a dvd or two of source for $29 I believe it is. How much of a burden is that?
But for the download he pretty much has to offer a download. But if he charges for the binary download then he can also charge the same amount for the source download. So he could also go that route.