Ubuntu Open to Aiding Derivative Distributions

lisah writes "Bruce Byfield wrote recently of a GPL requirement that may have unintended consequences for derivative distributions. Ubuntu's technical leader Matt Zimmerman responded with the suggestion that the folks at Ubuntu might be able to assist. From the article: 'It's less clear to me whether a legal agreement with the upstream distributor could satisfy this requirement," Zimmerman says, talking about the obligation to provide source code for everything that a distro ships, "but given that Ubuntu is already obligated to continue to distribute source code for as long as we distribute binaries, it's possible that we could offer that kind of assistance if it would help.'" Newsforge is also owned by OSTG.

I see this mostly as a non-issue

This is mostly a non-issue. Why would anyone be wanting the source-code specific from a distrobution based on debian/ubuntu? the binary packages havn't changed, all they really need to do is hunt down the version of the software they wanted the source from. This whole providing the source thing is a bunch of FUD from a small group of people trying to make things difficult for small time distros. Props to the ubuntu for offering to help out, and make the FUD go away.

Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue

Well, they can accompany the binaries with a written offer to deliver the source code on request. They can then charge whatever it costs them to provide it (within reasonable limits I presume).

Re:I see this mostly as a non-issue

(1) They don't have to put the source literally in the same package as the binary. They can do what Debian does -- offer a source package and a binary package, and leave it up to the user to decide which to download (or both, of course).

(2) It's really too bad that they're cash-strapped, don't have time to deal with the problem, etc. etc. They are using the copywrited work of others and have a legal obligation to comply with the licenses under which that work is distributed. If they can't do that, they should work with software that's written under a license that doesn't have such requirements.

This isn't "a bunch of FUD from a small group of people trying to make things difficult for small time distros." This is a bunch of developers distributing copywrited work without bothering to investigate their legal obligations. The FSF isn't trying to shut these people down; it isn't asking for damages (to which it may be entitled); it is trying to make sure that these developers, who failed to do their homework, respect the rights of the people who's work they are using.

Storm in a teacup

It isn't hard to distribute source. Why not just do so? (e.g. by copying the distribution you've derived from's source packages, as well as the binary ones that you aren't modifying).

What?

I must be missing something here. Don't they just have to provide the source or a way for someone to request the source? Just make it part of your SOP to have the source available for everything you do.

Again, I'm no expert on these things, so maybe I've missed something?

Tree of distributions

Does anyone know of any [graphical] tree representations of all the linux distributions. This would look great, it's fantastic to see how the hundreds of distributions we have now are the forks of forks of only four maternal Eve's.

Those are Debian, Gentoo, Red Hat, Slackware.

Re:Tree of distributions

Debian, Gentoo, Red Hat, Slackware...all of which package nmap, which was featured in Matrix: Reloaded with Keanu Reeves.

(this part courtesy of oracleofbacon.org)
Keanu Reeves was in Speed (1994/I) with Beau Starr
Beau Starr was in Where the Truth Lies (2005) with Kevin Bacon.

So there you have it. All those original distros have at most a Bacon number of 3.

Re:Tree of distributions

Actually, those distros have a Bacon number of 2, thanks to Laurence Fishburne also starring in the Matrix.

Laurence Fishburne has a Bacon number of 1.

Laurence Fishburne was in Mystic River (2003) with Kevin Bacon

Re:Tree of distributions

Is this [mayix.net] what you're looking for? Or this [blogger.com]?

To the people who don't understand

A lot of comments right now are to the effect of, "Why is it so hard to distribute the source?". Well, let me ask you this, do you run or rent a web site at this time? Do you have any clue how massive the original sources for some of these derivative projects are? Imagine, for instance, you're a small freelancer who writes say, 4 mb of changes to a project, but then you find you have to provide the source for the 500 mb+ original. Most people cannot afford that kind of bandwidth. And before everyone jumps on me that you can just mail out a cd/dvd with the source on it after charging handling, yes that's legit, but thats not what the original people were asking, i'm just trying to clear up some of the confusion.

The problem: archives

A lot of people here don't seem to understand the problem with this GPL clause: Archives.

Suppose I redistribute binaries for a GPLed program, and the package I distribute is updated every week. On the server where I distribute the packages, I only need to distribute the latest version of the compiled code; however, due to the GPL requirements, I have to keep source packages available for the next 3 years -- that is, I need to keep 150+ source packages available.

It's easy to make the source code available in the same place as the executable code. Making the source code available in that same place for the next three years gets expensive.

*bzzt* thanks for playing! :)

> "On the server where I distribute the packages, I only need to distribute the latest version of the compiled code; however, due to the GPL requirements, I have to keep source packages available for the next 3 years -- that is, I need to keep 150+ source packages available."

No, that's not true! I don't know if you're merely ignorant or trying to FUD, but bottom line is that you're simply wrong!

If you're making the source available with the binaries, then you don't need to make the source available for three years. The three-year clause (clause 3b) only applies if you're not providing source when you provide binaries. You can either (3a) provide source with the binaries or (3b) include a three-year written offer to provide the source or (3c) pass along a 3b offer that you received (non-commercial distributors only). Those are alternative options, not simultaneous requirements. And nobody with any sense uses anything but clause 3a! (Note: I've used all three.) :)

Look at the last paragraph in section 3: "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." (Emphasis mine.) This is the famous "equivalent access" clause that almost all non-commercial distros rely on, and have for years. (At least, all the ones run by people with any sense.)

So having source and binaries on your site qualifies as complying with clause 3a, and you don't need to worry about the three-year feature of 3b!

If you're distributing on CD/DVD, the same reasoning applies. Just ship the source too! Yes, it may double your up-front media costs, but those are trivial compared to your other costs, and it's going to save you a lot of trouble down the road.

ubuntu already does this

.. by including Kubuntu in its official project and also it may add Xubuntu for the XFCE based distro. Debian feedback is also provided as they still use alot of the same base for their bundled applications.

It's Nice

They are Open to Aiding Derivative Distributions since they themselves are a Derivative Distribution of Debian...

Good Move-kudos to the Ubuntu team

I see these negative posts, but let's try it like this:
1. they have decided to HELP out the community....+ points
2. not all developers cna afford the bandwidth, or do not have the resources easily available to ship source or provide for download.....+points, as still available from Ubuntu
3. this can go on, I'll not bother- but the point being is Ubuntu is trying to HELP the community-what's not to like about this?

IMHO, this is showing the true spirit of FOSS, so unless you have an agenda against FOSS, then give 'em a hand/applause, whichever you can do!

RTFL

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [gnu.org]. IANAL of course, just thinking loud:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: 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,

Doubles the download, but why not add source?

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,

I read "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution,". If i pay a server for 3 years, thats performing source distribution? So i can request that money for source?

And, how about sourceforge etc? Sure a distro is large, but could they host it?

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.)

That sounds like referencing another distro would do it.

Upstream?

This is silly. The GPL [wikipedia.org] is not that nefarious.

All distribution ultimately relies on an "upstream" distributor.

Let's say you provide FTP access, but use a colocated [wikipedia.org] server that you don't own -- you have an agreement with an upstream provider to provide bandwidth and disk space to provide your licensees with the source. Why does it matter if it's Rackspace or Ubuntu who serves as the upstream provider? Or if it's Memorex media and the Post Office or a floppy and delivered via sneakernet [wikipedia.org]?

The intent here is clear: the entity distributing binaries to some users must also ensure that said users are able to come into possession of a copy of the source through reasonable means, be it downloading or making at-cost physical copies available. In other words, it seems to me that the distributor of binaries must only take some action for which the receipt of the desired source by the requesting licensee is a result.

Smart downloader?

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [gnu.org], 3a) says

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;

That means if i accompany the sourcecode immediate, there is no need to keep it available longer? If i write a downloader which downloads all sources immediate, ie fetches the exact versions from the repository where i got that stuff, i am ok? Would be a big download, but..

This exemplifies why Ubuntu is taking over

Just compare.

In Fedora:
- RedHat controls the board that decides what goes in an what stays out. It's kind of like a "No Parking, Violators Will be Towed" thing.
- RedHat directly takes over source code maintenance for any package that they decide to include. Original authors are typically out of the loop.
- The old fedora.us was a user-created add-on package site for RedHat (which use to be free). Marketing at RedHat merged them, then toss them.
- Enhancements to code are made by RedHat are usually only available AFTER the RedHat releases software that uses them.
- Derivatives of RedHat software get no support, but I bet they get nice letters from RedHat legal.

In Ubuntu:
- You are encouraged to become a "Master of the Universe", and help decide what goes in and to maintain the packages.
- Ubuntu only takes control over core packages required for average end-users to have stable environments.
- There's little need for a user group to build unofficial add-ons (other than EasyBuntu ;-) ... No ubuntu.us ever existed, and if it did, it would not get subverted.
- Enhancements to open-source are fed back to the authors promptly. Authors are in the loop.
- Derivatives in theory will be welcomed.

Let's face it: RedHat is a public company controlled by shareholders. Their goal is therefore to suck more money out of us than ever before, and to do it in the next 12 months, so stockholders can sell their stock at a nice profit, and get out. Ubuntu is controlled by the BDFL (one man, the right man), and has been given over to a foundation for long-term viability. Their goal is to replace Windows on the Desktop, and to worry about how that translates into obscene wealth later.

As for the value of getting real support for a derivative distribution... if I were doing a startup based on Unbuntu code, I'd sure as heck want it!

FreeDOS ODIN and the GPL

When, 3 years ago, I started developing a FreeDOS distribution called FD-ODIN, I did what MEPIS did, and actually got called on it by the FreeDOS developers themselves (I think it was actually Jim Hall but don't quote me) - even binding my distribution to a specific release of a specific version was not enough (i.e., if all my packages were unmodified out of a final release version, I couldn't just point to that version and say "there's the source"). For future versions, such as my GrODIN project, I did go further, downloaded all the source packages I thought I might need, bundled them whether I used them or not. Better safe than sorry. They have hosted my releases themselves in the past, dunno if the same holds for GrODIN.

-uso.

Nice gesture

> "but given that Ubuntu is already obligated to continue to distribute source code for as long as we distribute binaries, it's possible that we could offer that kind of assistance if it would help.'

So they're willing to take up the requirement of keeping the sources around for at least 3 years longer than they would otherwise have to, just for the benefit of derived distros? That's a pretty nice gesture! I hope they do realize what they're offering to do :-)

Re:This is silly....

you want silly
when I emailed an enquiry the reply was
prepare 1 cd of source code
sell code / install cd to customer
sell source cd to customer
offer to buy back source cd for 1 cent
go to next customer