On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:37:41PM -0500, Jim Hartley wrote:
> The problem arises when you make a small change to a big project.
> Suppose the project has 100 modules, and you change one or two. Then,
> can you just put the source code for those two on your website and
> provide a link back to where you got the stuff for the other 98? There
> seems to be an opinion floating around that you have to provide the
> source for ALL 100 MODULES on YOUR website in order to comply with the
> terms of the GPL. If for some reason the site you are linking to
> disappears, moves, whatever, and those other 98 modules become
> unavailable, then YOU are in violation of the GPL.
It even more directly and fully becomes a problem when someone in his
basement thinks about creating a new Linux distribution in his spare
time. Think about it: most of the time, a new Linux distribution uses a
binary package manager as its primary means of distributing software,
including the GNU coreutils.
This is where the MEPIS and Kororaa projects ran into problems, when the
FSF threatened them with lawsuits. Both are labors of love put together
by, and primarily maintained by, individual lovers of Linux who are
interested in spreading that love to others -- and not in making it
prohibitively difficult for nontechnical people to use by forcing them
to compile everything from source.
It's even worse when the Ubuntu project mails someone a CD, who then
gives it to you. When you're done with it, you're technically
prohibited legally from passing it on to another person, because A) you
don't have the source for everything GPLed on that CD, and B) you're not
a first-generation recipient of the binaries, so you're not allowed to
just refer back to the last person that had them.
>
> This rather restrictive interpretation, if indeed the case, could prove
> extremely burdensome to the little guy who is just fooling around to
> make something more useful to himself, and then trying to be a good guy
> by distributing his improvements. This would have a chilling effect on
> development.
It's the interpretation the Free Software Foundation is using when
threatening people with lawsuits, so I think it's safe to say that it's
entirely UNSAFE to distribute GPLed binaries a lot of the time -- and
even when it is safe, you're placing the people to whom you're
distributing them in the position of being unable to safely distribute
them a lot of the time.
-- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:14:10 EDT