Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 15, 1:34 am, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:17:20 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> In message <548024fc-
> >> dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b... at l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patrick
> >> Maupin wrote:
>
> >> > The confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether
> >> > source must be distributed certainly helps to show that as well.
>
> >> What “confusion”? The GPL requires that source must always be offered
> >> in some form. Simple as that.
>
> > Right, but when I explained that that requirement also applies to Joe,
> > who downloaded an ISO from Ubuntu and burned a CD and gave it away, no
> > less than 3 people jumped in to "correct" me.
>
> The confusion is over what form that offer may be, and what counts as
> distribution.
>
> Your claim seems plausible, but whether it is correct or not is not so
> obvious.

Exactly.  And when people say it's obviously incorrect, they're
obviously incorrect, because if it were obvious, it would have been
answered correctly by now :-)

> I would say that, given the lack of any lawsuits against
> individuals and Linux User Groups, the *intention* of the GPL is to allow
> individuals to act as a proxy between the end-user and the actual
> distributor (in this case, Ubuntu) without taking on the obligation to
> provide source code.

Yes, and as I said, lawsuits against individuals would be bad for
business (as business is defined in the GPL world).

> Looking at the FAQs, my comments in square brackets:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid

Well, for one thing, that section is only *directly* relevant to GPL
v2.  For another thing, it is only directly relevant to Canonical's
obligations, not Joe's.

[Text snipped; part of d'Aprano interpretation left]

>     [I am obliged to tell my friend they can get the Ubuntu written
>     offer from Ubuntu's website, and pass it on directly if asked]

Sure, and that's *exactly* what I said isn't going to happen in a lot
of cases, because it takes a careful reading of the license and FAQ
for someone to realize that.  The download button at Ubuntu tells you
to make more copies (your "rights") without telling you about the
source code (your "obligations").  Which is perfectly legal, but
someone who isn't reading carefully could easily give a CD to a friend
without the offer of source.

>     This means that people who did not get the binaries directly
>     from you can still receive copies of the source code, along
>     with the written offer.

More obligations on the part of Canonical;  note, however, that
Canonical's obligation to distribute source to a CD that you gave to a
friend may not even be long enough to cover 3 years after the time you
gave the CD to your friend.

>     The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party
>     is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way
>     can order the source code from you. [In other words, if I give
>     Fred a copy of Ubuntu, it is Canonical and not me who is responsible
>     for providing the source code to Fred if he asks for it.]
>
> Okay, it's not the licence itself, but the FAQ pretty much makes the
> intention clear.

Yes, it does.  The FAQ part you quote is for Canonical and for v2.
The one for the user handing over the CD still says (for v3):

"I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do
I have to get the source and distribute that too? Yes. The general
rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete
corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you
received a written offer for source code is quite limited."

But, even if you fall under that limited exception, you *still* have
to make the written offer, and I stand by my assertion that even that
token act is not happening in lots of cases as we speak.

> Merely handing over an Ubuntu DVD to a friend is not a
> violation of the GPL.

... as long as you make the written offer.

Regards,
Pat