Picking a license

[Paul Boddie]

On 14 Mai, 19:15, Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> > Section 3 of GPLv2 (and section 6(d) of GPLv3 reads similarly): "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."
>
> > And here's that FAQ entry which clarifies the intent:
>
> >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet

[...]

> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary

We're all aware of the obligation to provide source code. You've spent
the last few days complaining about it.

> > Like I said, if you really have a problem with Ubuntu shipping CDs and
> > exposing others to copyright infringement litigation.
>
> So, deliberately or not, you're trying to change the discussion
> again.  I *never* discussed Ubuntu shipping a physical CD, and never
> intimated that that was a problem.  My discussion was *always* about
> an individual *downloading* an ISO and *burning* a CD himself, then
> *distributing* the CD to someone else.

I am not changing the discussion at all. You are describing a
situation where someone gets the binaries but not the sources, but
according to the licence they should get both of those things
(ignoring written offers and the like), and this does apply to Ubuntu
since precisely this act of distribution (to use the older term) is
performed by them. That you then pass on the binaries without the
sources is an equivalent situation, ignoring for the moment that you
do not yourself have the sources either.

So, what are you supposed to do when the recipient "calls" you on the
lack of sources? (And, yes, clearly the FSF anticipates that not
everyone will request the sources because it is written in that very
excerpt I provide above.) If the recipient is strict about exact
compliance, you will have to provide the sources on CD to them. And
this makes sense: if they can only make use of the binaries if
provided on CD (and not, say, on an FTP site because they don't have
an Internet connection, for example), then they will need to receive
the sources in the same manner. Of course, the recipient may only
demand certain sources, not wishing to avail themself of the sources
for all copyleft-licensed packages in the binary distribution.

Now we return to the matter of getting the Ubuntu sources. If you
ordered a CD from Ubuntu via their ShipIt service, it is at this point
that you can demand a CD of corresponding sources. If they cannot
provide one, then obviously it poses a problem for your compliance
(and theirs, and you should see once again why Ubuntu's activities do
matter), but naturally Ubuntu provide parallel binary and source
repositories for all their packages. So, even if they were found not
to be in compliance according to the strictest interpretation of the
licence, it is technically possible for you to acquire the
corresponding sources and make them available to the person who was
given the CD. If you downloaded an ISO file, Ubuntu could (and do)
obviously provide source packages from the same location: their Web
site and various mirrors.

Really, if at this point you think I'm playing games with you, then
you really need to stop taking score and formulate the exact problem
you have with the distribution of Ubuntu-style media, because I'm
starting to think that the only real problem here is the one you have
with people using copyleft-style licences for their works. Since we've
had to hear about that over several days, I don't think that
articulating that particular problem once again really brings anything
more to the discussion.

Paul