GPL Causing Problems for Derivative Linux Distros 386
NewsForge (Also owned by VA) is reporting on a recent discovery by Warren Woodford about how the GPL could affect derivative Linux distributions. This could make life difficult for those small distros that are being maintained by one or two people in their spare time due to the high amount of work it creates. From the article: "Woodford does supply the source code for MEPIS' reconfigured kernel in a Debian source-package. His mistake seems to have been the assumption that, so long as the source code was available somewhere, he did not have to provide it himself if he hadn't modified it. While he has not contacted any other distributions, he suspects that he is far from the only one to make this assumption. 'We, like 10,000 other people, probably, believed we were covered by the safe harbor of having an upstream distribution available online,' Woodford says. 'I think, of the 500 distributions tracked by DistroWatch, probably 450 of them are in trouble right now per this position.'"
Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:5, Interesting)
From: mrAngry@snootygits.com
Subject: I want the source code to your system!
Polite Reply:
If you would like the source code you are welcome to have it.
Please note however that I have only made changes to a few of the thousands of x system source files.
There are 2 ways that you can have it, the simplest being go to my upstream system writer and download the base code which I used and see the src folder on my FTP/CVS/web server for my own modifications.
Otherwise I am willing to post you a CD/DVD containing the entire source code (original and my modifications). I cannot unfortunately upload the entire x GB folder since I do not have the bandwidth to spare.
Please note however, there will be an administration and postage charge of £10 if you require a DVD image.
have a nice day.
Anyone making source modifications to a system must have at least one source copy of the original so be respectful but don't waste your time worrying about it.
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the primary concern is, what happens to a distro like MEPIS? Do they need to retain a full and publically available source repository for every package in Ubuntu? That could be an administrative and financial drain.
If an upstream distro has to keep their sources available for all revisions of all packages for three years, surely all a downstream distro has to do is refer to those sources for untainted packages? Is this good enough for the FSF, or are they just going to turn into the bully of the FOSS community?
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:4, Insightful)
It appears to be the latter.
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:5, Insightful)
No, just the ones they distribute. Honestly, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. I mean, you had the source when you compiled the system, right? Once you get your release squared away, you do the release build, then zip up a copy of the sources and tuck it away somewhere. If someone wants the source, then you drag it out and make it available. Note that the GPL permits you to charge reasonable fees for making the source available, so go ahead and copy the source CD and ship it off. As long as it's not in some odd-wad format, you should be fine (legally speaking).
Better check with (Score:2)
Re:Better check with (Score:2)
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:5, Informative)
There is no requirement to keep the source code available online to every single release you have ever done, but it makes SENSE to keep it stored away on CD inside a filing cabinet.
If somebody comes to you in 3 years with a request to the source code, you can return the EXACT code he had from the release he is requesting.
It is not breaking any clause of the GPL and would infact be a worthy test of a company to produce such data.
The daytime software I work on is closed source, however we use the same thinking there.
I can go into our files and produce a CD containing the entire code and packages for every single release of the software we have made since the DOS days.
To my knowledge however we have only ever required it ONCE. If it were open source, why would I waste the space to keep that online? (there are around 90 release CDs available, each around 400mb)
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup. Seems like total nonsense to me.
Even if he chose to distribute the sources online, the resources required are trivial. A bzip'd source file is rarely much larger than binaries produced from it. We're talking about at most a factor of 2 difference in storage on the server even if he decided to independently place the source to every version of every binary online. And, there are many ways to cut that number down until it's a marginal increase in storage requirements.
There's no requirement that he distribute the source in an elaborate or easy to use way. Just write something that fetches the source to every used package and tosses them on the server somewhere every time a version is released. Remove the old ones from the server and offer to ship a dvd in exchange for handling costs.
Better yet, keep an up-to-date local copy and just check it into a cvs server with every release. (That way you only pay to store the diffs and have the source for every release available should anyone want it.)
If he's right and nobody actually wants or needs to get the source from him, then the additional bandwidth requirements will be tiny. On the other hand, if the added bandwidth *is* important, then it demonstrates that there's a very good reason to require source distribution.
Personally, I've never used a distro for which source packages aren't available. It seems like such an obvious step that I'd think twice before trusting someone who didn't do so automatically *before* getting a letter from the fsf.
How did this get modded up? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How did this get modded up? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How did this get modded up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and typicall reason why people shy away from Linux:
"Should you read the appropriate documentation, "
maybe the poster didn't know where the docs are? perhaps they where new and just need some friendly advice?
Man, you are a dick.
I imagine if some asks you for directions to the corner store you just tell them to fuck off and by a map.
Re:How did this get modded up? (Score:3, Insightful)
> "I said Ubuntu wasn't being compliant"
He seemed to know enough to sling around baseless accusations. He deserves a good "fuck off" response.
Re:How did this get modded up? (Score:3, Funny)
Naw man, the American way is to tell them to fuck off unless they want to buy a map from me.
Re:How did this get modded up? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a bit odd to tell someone to google something that's available via apt-get. The Ubuntu kernel source package comes up clearly using synaptic and searching for "kernel" - and I should know, as it was the first package I installed when I put Ubuntu on my laptop (my laptop's ACPI needs a kernel patch for things to work correctly). The only thing remotely confusing was that the U
Re:How did this get modded up? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:5, Informative)
The APT package management system also provides commands that make it quite easy to download source automatically.
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:2)
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a prominent link on their download page [ubuntu.com]. So you can obtain the source code from the same place they distribute the binaries. This seems to be perfectly compliant with the GPL. Or go type "Ubuntu source code" into Google - it took me 10 seconds to find archive.ubuntu.com.
Nothing mandates coddling of morons. There will always be some self-righteous asshole who thinks the world owes him a hand-holding. To him and those like him, a resounding "fuck you". Learn to treat people with respect and basic decency, and you'll get much farther in life.
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:2)
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:3, Informative)
He's already replied to this but yes if you don't have a working network.
It is a requirement to make source they used to build the distro available upon request period, end of story, full stop. No snide remarks are really needed. They had the source when they built the distro, and even if they didn't modify a single line of code are required to make the source available upon request if they wish to continue to distribute it. As has been of
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:5, Informative)
Then that's his problem, not Ubuntu's. They satisfied the legal requirement under section 3a of the GPL by making the source available on the same website that they distribute the object code from (with an easy automatic command, no less). If he can't connect with a particular machine, Ubuntu has no obligation to fix his problem for him.
And if he happened to get the distro on a CD, the Ubuntu FAQ has this to say:
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:2)
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:5, Informative)
There is no requirement to have the source instantly available online. It is perfectly acceptable to simply present a written offer of the source code for a nominal handling fee on physical media such as DVD-R. This will eliminate most of the people who just want the code to annoy you rather than do something serious with it.
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:2)
I don't think it matters. The GPL says that if you cannot distribute your program under the terms of the GPL then your sole remedy is to stop distribution... that sort of implies that stopping distribution is sufficient response if you are violating the GPL. Thus you shouldn't need to keep anything around if you stop distributing permanently. Of cours
Re:This is why distros like Gentoo have an advanta (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:2)
In the three years I've made these glossaries available, not once has anyone requested the source. Not once.
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:2)
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been the Mr. Angry in this situation -- I'm not sure if it was a language issue, or why, but instead of telling me "the code is in anonymous cvs from XXX under tag YYY," or sending me a copy, the kernel hacker in question basically told me that he wasn't interested in helping me. It meant that I was stuck unable to make necessary reconfigurations to the only working kernel I could find for my handheld; I was basically stuck with a binary blob that I couldn't modify. I knew that the guy was one of the good guys, but it still really sucked being stuck in a situation that (a) left me unable to use Linux on my handheld, even though someone somewhere had got it working, (b) the GPL was designed to prevent, and (c) was, technically, illegal.
For me it was a much greater waste of time not getting the source code; it was such a waste of time that I gave up and shelved my handheld. You may not care about me personally, but you should bear in mind that fulfilling the GPL's conditions is very important, for reasons besides "it's the law."
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:2, Funny)
Here in England, the helicopters are navy blue with pinstripes
Re:Applies to other GPL software as well (Score:3, Informative)
No. The way it works is you're allowed to charge $X million dollars for the binaries. Once you purchase the binaries (or acquire them otherwise, AFAIK), the source code must be included, available for free, or available for a reasonable fee to cover distribution.
Uhhh, you can (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called passing on an offer to supply source code.. it's a part of the GPL. What a load of shit.
Re:Uhhh, you can (Score:2)
most distros operate under the "offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code" provision which makes no such allowences for redistributors.
Re:Uhhh, you can (Score:4, Informative)
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
So if Debian is offering binary packages of something that is under the GPL they MUST be offering a written offer under section (b) and therefore you are clearly free to pass that written offer third parties under section (c). Assuming you're not commercially distributing the work, but this guy probably is, so what's so hard about replacing their name with yours. All this is supposed to encourage you to use section (a) and distribute the source code with the binaries.. why is that so hard?
Re:Uhhh, you can (Score:3, Informative)
Having the source downloadable from the same page/location as the binaries, or other "equivalent access" satisifes this obligation.
Re:Uhhh, you can (Score:2)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binar
Re:Uhhh, you can (Score:3, Informative)
In order to fulfill your obligation under the GPL, you don't have to put the source in the same tar file as the binary, just on the same server. The user is still free to choose to download only the binary.
Re:Uhhh, you can (Score:2)
The phrase "physical form" does not appear in the relevant section of the GPL, the language there is "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". That extends far beyond physical form; it does require a written offer, however, which may or may not be problematic ("written" can include fixed information in electronic form; whether it does or not in the GPL probably depends on which jurisdiction's law the lice
Re:Uhhh, you can (Score:2)
rtfa and still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes sense to me that the person distributing the binaries should be responsible for making source code available for said binaries. That is how the license is written, and it is very straight forward. No surprise here - so what is the complaint?
Do we really want everyone and their brother shipping their own MyFirstDistro as binary only, just because the sources are individually (hopefully, for the time being) available elsewhere? Is it fair to put that burden on someone else?
Re:rtfa and still don't get it (Score:2, Interesting)
Bear in mind that, although not directly related to cases where changes are made, handing out CDs to friends *is also* distribution, but thanks to section 3(c) of the license you are perfectly able to refer them to the "bigger" distro supplier for the source code.
There are cases where indeed the big fish are required to provide source code hosting for the smaller distributors.
Re:rtfa and still don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, technically, that's pretty clearly not right; if the upstream distributor didn't use the written offer option in 3(b), which most don't, you can't use the 3(c) option to pass on that written offer—as 3(c) is expressly limited to
Re:rtfa and still don't get it (Score:2)
GPL? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, I think a BSD license is not a very big burden to anyone, small or big.
This is nothing new... (Score:5, Insightful)
People who do not read license... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a pretty good plain English translation of the requirements to distribute GPL software.
Re:People who do not read license... (Score:3, Interesting)
These projects may be covered under section 3 (c) of the license:
(relating to pre-compiled binary distribution)
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer
Re:People who do not read license... (Score:3, Informative)
Only if the upstream distributor uses 3(b).
If they used 3(a) - as most do - then the downstream guy has no written offer to pass on.
We need a GPL police to enforce the GPL (Score:4, Funny)
This article is FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine that anyone is actually asking these small Linux distributions to provide the source code for the Linux kernel when it is available for a free download.
Re:This article is FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Quit whining, distro makers (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, these "distro makers" are downloading vast amounts of material covered by the GPL for free and then redistributing it for money or advertising. (MEPIS sticks in an Earthlink signup icon, for example.) And then they whine that they have to provide the source for the free stuff they're reselling.
Even worse, some of these distro makers want you to sign up for a "support contract". If they don't have a repository of the source, their support probably isn't worth much.
Re:Quit whining, distro makers (Score:4, Informative)
This is perfectly acceptable to the GPL, to my understanding.
The problem arises when someone wants the source and the distro maker does not have the capability of providing it; they are obligated to provide it, even if it's a measly single line patch+original source.
Re:Quit whining, distro makers (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Quit whining, distro makers (Score:3, Informative)
If you are re-distributing non-commercially and unaltered code you do not have to provide source.
The flip side is that if either of the two clauses are FALSE, you do have to provide source:
If you are re-distributing commercially but unaltered code, you do have to provide source.
If you are re-distributing non-commercially and altered code, you do have to provide source.
The only way you can "simply point the user to the upstream provider" is if you are non commercial AND unaltered. As
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
And who would be affected if these distros stopped being maintained? Nobody in their right mind is going to rely on a software project that is somebody's hobby.
This doesn't really kill one-man distros, it just means that the one man can't go through the pointless ritual of creating an ISO that nobody actually uses. So big deal. If you want to have fun by creating your very own Linux distro, nobody's stopping you. But if you want to create a distro (or any other open source project) that people will actually use, you have to learn to work with others.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Best. Irony. Ever.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the criteria for any open source project leaving 'hobby' status? To put it another way, when did people of 'right mind' start using Linux, which started out as Linus' hobby?
Re:So what? (Score:2)
What about FTP mirrors? (Score:2, Insightful)
the point of the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the point of the GPL was to encourage people to share and reuse code. Enforcing that EACH person who reuses code also shares it themselves is counter to this intention. The effect will be less reuse and less sharing overall. Obviously someone has to make it available, and when and upstream provider stops doing so, everyone else would have to pick up the slack.
Re:the point of the GPL (Score:2)
I thought the point of the GPL was to encourage people to share and reuse code. Enforcing that EACH person who reuses code also shares it themselves is counter to this intention.
Quite an oxymoron.
If the point is to share AND reuse, why enforcing sharing along with reusing is against sharing and reusing?
Re:the point of the GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it sound reasonable to you that upstream pays for the bandwidth after they have already given the product out for free?
I have an idea (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, I've heard that idea before somewhere...
the killer bees are almost here (Score:2)
Re:the killer bees are almost here (Score:2)
So offer the source code. (Score:2, Interesting)
HTH, HAND
Re:So offer the source code. (Score:3, Insightful)
My time is not free. If I had to retrieve the source to 1000 packages and burn 20 DVDs full of it, then post it to another country it's going to take me a couple of days *and* the postage is a bitch.
$100 an hour is not an unreasonable price for that. 2 days.. 16 hours, $1600, plus another $200 postage and packaging.
Only copyright holders can sue, and they won't (Score:3, Insightful)
The angry user cannot legally sue you since they do not own the rights to the source code. The chances are the original programmer won't try to sue you either. They would have nothing to gain by doing so, unless you are making tons of money from your distribution (and if so, you can afford to mirror the entire source code). As long as you are reasonable you should be fine.
Just relax, and get on with making the next version.
Mepis plays fast & loose with GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
My reasons are several, but one of the top ones is murky licensing.
No doubt somebody from the MEPIS community will loudly declare that licensing is not a problem. If this is the case, exactly how can I get the source to build myself a MEPIS distro?
There has been considerable bad blood in the MEPIS community and former community. I am not a member of any faction. I have done my share to contribute. [uwaterloo.ca] I simply tried to get my questions answered and MEPIS and Warren came up short. His many rants -- the one cited in the story is one of many over the last three years -- further convince me that I was right to walk away.
MEPIS is because is non-standard. Warren repeatedly warns against upgrading packages from the standard Debian repositories. There is no upgrade path from one version of MEPIS to the next. There appears to be a very weak mechanism for collecting community know-how as to how to configure the system to "just work" on a particular platform.
Take what it gives. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no upgrade path from one version of MEPIS to the next.
Well, that's what happens when you mix in non free stuff like Macromedia flash, Real Player, Nvidia drivers, NDis wrappers, Vonage clients, etc. Non free is brittle. It might be less brittle than the Windoze world, but it will never be as easy as the free world.
Free packages in Mepis upgrade with about as much grace as you can expect. Just last week, I upgraded Kontact from a 2003 edition to Etch. This worked out OK through apt-get outside of X. It got all the KDE goodies, xorg and other dependencies and just worked when it was done. There was one hang up, but the system itself told me what magic phrase to type.
There appears to be a very weak mechanism for collecting community know-how as to how to configure the system to "just work" on a particular platform.
Nuts. Mepis is one of the easiest distributions to install. If it works off the CD, it will work off your hard drive and Mepis works with more hardware than anything else I've ever tried.
Mepis is still a great distribution to install for someone when you don't want to spend a lot of time. It demonstrates what free software can do. The problems it has are the problems of non free software in general and those rear their head far less often on a Mepis system than they do on less free platforms. In short, don't give up a useful tool just because one person says some stupid things.
Warren can and will fix this little source code problem and this little non issue will fade away without trace. The chances are that some co operative solution will be easiest. Distributions which use the same package unmodified can get together to share the cost and expense of keeping the source code available.
Re:Mepis plays fast & loose with GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
A small distro is fine so long as it is architected as a delta on established base. Then you can keep current with the base and the worst that'll ever happen is that the distro-specific deltas have to be adapted and re-applied. If the small distro is viable, it should be able to do that much. Or figure out a way to use community support to maintain and enhance the deltas (for example, to support new hardware). Even if
I'm not buying it. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are re-distributiong non-commercially, without modification, upstream source is fine (which makes sense)
If you are modifying anything, including doing your own custom kernel, then you must provide source. Providing the source alongside the downloads, granting equivalent access to it, satisifes your obligation under the GPL to provide source. The day you stop offering downloads, you can stop offering the source as well.
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a very good thing - there needs to be a lot less "small distros maintained by one or two people in their spare time". These SDMBORTPITSTs aren't helping anyone: if you want to roll your own linux for some itch you want to scratch - more power to you; but there's no need to call it a distro and pretend that you are going to maintain it for more than 2 months.
Exception for free distribution? (Score:2)
Re:Exception for free distribution? (Score:3, Informative)
That's true if and only if you originally received a object/executable distribution with a written offer of source code under 3(b); if you received source code under 3(a), either as part of the package with the object/executable or provided from the same source as a separate, optional downloaded, you haven't received a written offer under 3(b), and can't yourself pass on t
Re:Exception for free distribution? (Score:2)
Re:Exception for free distribution? (Score:2)
GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content (Score:2)
Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content (Score:2)
So including the app with my mod would mean players just download and go, no other downloads or installation necessary.
Fine. You can go along with it.
I can't do that without distributing all the source, including that for my modifications. Nevermind how to distribute what little I modified in "source"; I renamed the files in the Finder and copied some icon graphics into the app package, what's the source to that? Nevermind that I couldn't code my way out of "hello world"; even if I wanted to ship a c
Re:GPL Problem Areas - Symbiotic Code and Content (Score:3, Insightful)
My problem is with having to host the source code for a project that I'm only really a user of. I make content for use in this program, content without which the program is useless (and a program without which my content is useless), and which, if everything were unencumbered by licences, would rightly be bundled together with a copy of the program. How many commercial or even freeware games do you find t
Overblown (Score:2)
The concerns the article expresses are valid but a bit overblown. Yes, distros have to offer source code. Yes, that means for all packages even if you only modify a few. The FSF has a point, that's the only way to insure the source for your distro is available if the upstream moves to newer versions that aren't compatible with your stuff. But there's several ways to handle this without much trouble:
I wonder what reasonable is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypothetical:
Say I make (ast an hourly rate of my annual salary) $50 an hour. Not unresaonable for a consultant.
I am distributing a baby distro and I do the source via DVD and postal request since I cannot afford a lot of bandwidth.
Figure it takes me 20 minutes to process the request, type up the label, grab the latest from my repository and DL the rest fromthe upstream, burn a DVD, and put it in a protective mailer package. And other 20 to go to the post office and 20 to come back (assume I'm in a rural area outside the suburbs). So thats and our of my time. Add in that this is essentially overtime in addition to my real job, so I bill it at time and a half. Thats $75 baseline in cost.
Add in the postage ($8 or whatever the USPS "Priority Mail" rate is), the mileage and gas on the car to go to the post office, the CD cost (including mileage on the car and gas and time to go buy them, plus wear and tear amortization on my CD burner), cost of the bandwidth, etc.
So all in all:
"Yes, you can have the whole source tree from my upstream and the 2K of diffs I have added - the reasonable cost for this source is $94.37 per CD"
Is that the right answer?
Every penny of it is documented and accounted for. Every bit of it is involved with the cost in materiels and time that it takes to prepare and ship the source. My software is free, my time is not. If you think otherwise, go ahead and put yourself down as a slave who will work for free at the demands of people that use the software you donated - is that the intend of the GPL, to enslave authors to the whims of the recipients of their gifts?
Again: Not a troll, nor flamebait - just "hacking" the 'reasonable cost' clause in the GPL.
Who decides what is reasonable?
Does the GPL give someone the right to dictate to the person releasing the software what they can and cannot do with their time? Think about it.
If not, then how do you overcome the situation above, where the GPL seems to imply that you have to release the whole of the code, including upstreams, not just your diffs, especially where releasing the whole of the upstream is cumbersome or onerous - and the response ($94.37 per DVD) is likewise.
Personally, I never looked at it this way before - the only thing I've released as open source (long ago) has been under the BSD license just to avoid the entanglements the GPL requires. And that only to be able to avoid warranty that Public Domain doenst expressly mention.
Re:I wonder what reasonable is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wonder what reasonable is? (Score:4, Insightful)
$50/hr is unreasonably low. When I consulted, I charged $60 and that was some time ago. Of course, you said you're rural area, so good congratulations getting $50/hr.
Stop double-billing. You're not consulting now, you're administering a GPL distribution. 20 minutes to process a source request? Come on. Maybe 5 minutes to type/write the address label, assuming no SASE. What else is there to process? Do the ISO burn while you do the envelope. Need to build the ISO from CVS? Do that during dinner. Car expenses and travel time to the Post Office? Put it in the nearest mailbox while about your paying business-done. $5 at a rate of $60/hr. Maybe add $1 for the CD and postage. Get it out within two weeks or four if you're on vacation and who could complain?
By adjusting the materials rate to cover the CD, packaging, and postage appropriately, and by billing at the rate at which you are accustomed, you are making money servicing source requests at your preferred rate and more or less at a time of your partial choosing.
Not every commercial action is necessarily profitable. For-profit businesses occasionally lose money on a job.
Nobody is enslaving you. You offered source at a reasonable cost upon request when you chose to distribute software under the GPL. It is a gift that can require additional giving, but if you find this giving onerous why distribute under the GPL?
Presumably you found value in some GPL software, including but not limited to this software. Your analysis doesn't consider the benefits you have received in advance of making your gift.
Of course, the point is probably largely moot. When has anyone ever said they were actually overwhelmed by servicing source requests associated with a GPL distribution?
Priority mail should be at the requester's option and complete expense and only if possible with your schedule.
I don't take your comment as flamebait, and I hope this isn't taken as a flame but as another view of your cost analysis.
Re:I wonder what reasonable is? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. You charge $X for redistributing the source
2. Your customer thinks it's unreasonable and they make a stink
3. The holder of the copyright of the code notices (or is contacted) and they also agree it is unreasonable
4. The holder of the copyright contacts you and suggests that you should lower your price otherwise you will be in violation of the license
5. You hold steadfast to your price
6. The holder of the copyright terminates your right to distribute the software
7. You ignore this and continue to distribute the software
8. The holder of the copyright sues you
9. The judge asks you under what authority you were distributing the software
10. You have a choice of accepting the GPL or admitting that you don't have any authority to distribute the software. Since you actually have no choice, you say the GPL.
11. The judge determines whether or not the price is "reasonable". But I suspect that he/she would lean heavily in favour of the copyright holder's definition unless it were completely bonkers.
So, it's a long road to get to this point and quite likely you would resolve the situation before it ever got to the courts. And it would require several conversations with the copyright holder before it broke down that badly.
This is what makes the GPL so good.
Re:I wonder what reasonable is? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am distributing a baby distro and I do the source via DVD and postal request since I cannot afford a lot of bandwidth.
Sir, if you're making $50 an hour, you certainly can afford the bandwidth.
"Yes, you can have the whole source tree from my upstream and the 2K of diffs I have added - the reasonable cost for this source is $94.37 per CD"
Is that the right answer?
Maybe choose instead to bother with it in the ev
what 'reasonable' clause? (Score:3, Informative)
FreeBSD and distributed RPM packages (Score:3, Informative)
At the end they decided just to download the original SRPMS and make them available at the FreeBSD ftp sites too, just to get out of the hassle of it.
patch files? (Score:3, Interesting)
Would this affect any small source-based distro's that use patches on top of the original source files? [sort of like Gentoo, 'cept they aren't small]
Lately I've been thinking about building a small distro based on Gentoo or even just "roll your own" for my self. If I intend on releasing it to the public [I am still uncertain] would patch sets be the easiest route if I were to need to actually modify any code[it will be a source-based distro]?
Re:patch files? (Score:3, Interesting)
Patches contain parts of the original source therefore the patch is covered by GPL too.
Of course this means that distribution of patches is pointless.. you have to distribute the source *anyway* or you'll have the FSF on your back.
why is it so hard? (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they request the source code to a GPL package, and the author ignores them, what option do they have? I imagine the original copyright holder(s) would have an action as the original author(s) but I fail to see what standing the FSF has unless they are a copyright holder.
This is an honest question - I don't know how this aspect of law (copyright law, maybe some other laws sneak in?) would actually work. What are the limits?
Of course, the linux distro that isn't chock full of GNU tools is a rare bird indeed...
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Informative)
There's an important legal difference between licenses like the GPL a
Just distribute the code already. (Score:3, Informative)
(If you're wondering, it had nothing to do with the FSF or GPL zealots; I've been working on doing an AMD64 port of my system, and that meant I had to move away from simply pulling pre-existing x86 binaries and actually start building the source myself. Honestly, it actually seems to be working a lot better this way.)
Just in case any other would-be distribution maintainers are reading this, I may as well offer some advice – I've just put together a set of three ISO images containing the complete source code, as well as build scripts, etc. to automate the compile process. You really just have to know how to distribute it. As far as my distro's concerned, I don't actually distribute the ISO images or CD's myself – all the downloads, etc. go through MadTux.org [madtux.org], who not only host everything at no cost to me, but they also donate some of the money from monthly CD sales to me to continue development, pay for Web hosting, etc. So get someone like them to help with the hard part (actually distributing everything) and once that's out of the way, you should be fine.
Re:Big deal (Score:2)
The obvious problem being that a lot of ISPs these days (especially UK-based ISPs) are blocking or severely throttling torrent traffic. It makes it rather slow to grab the latest Fedora ISOs...
Well, that's not distributor fault, and therefore the distributor should still be GPL compliant (unless the torrent becomes completely un-downloadable). But in this case, hey, put it on a couple of DVD's (just to have backups) and write on the homepage "if you want source, send me $2+stamps and I'll send you the s
Re:Yet another example (Score:2)
Sorry if I bite the flamebait, but... so I must wait for my code -and therefore, my work- to be reused and sold by money by commercial software houses without any benefit to the community, just because I'm too lazy to tar up some source code?
No thanks.
You'd think... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but we're not there yet. You'd think it'd be time for some natural selection of the Internet. Who the fuck wants to read anything Jack Thompson has to say? Surely we could