PDA

View Full Version : source code



deanlinkous
December 14th, 2006, 03:24 PM
Hello,

I was wondering if UCE are providing their own source code and if so where it was?

Thanks!

mysticrider92
December 14th, 2006, 06:00 PM
Basically, Ubuntu CE is just Ubuntu with some packages preinstalled. The source code is available from the induvidual packages web sites. The only ones I am not sure about are the Dansguardian GUI, gVerse and the artwork. The base source is the same as the default Ubuntu.

deanlinkous
December 14th, 2006, 06:42 PM
Is it a official project of Ubuntu/Canonical?

Unless it is a offical product/project then it would mean it is something else. Being something else would mean that it is a seperate distro and therefore they would need to provide their own source code I would think.

meng
December 14th, 2006, 06:45 PM
Is it a official project of Ubuntu/Canonical?
Unless it is a offical product/project then it would mean it is something else. Being something else would mean that it is a seperate distro and therefore they would need to provide their own source code I would think.
I'm sure it is NOT an official project of Ubuntu/Canonical, but I don't believe that it automatically follows that they need to release source code since they are using the same binaries from the same repositories as everyone else. What is there to release?

mysticrider92
December 14th, 2006, 10:08 PM
Like meng said, Ubuntu CE is not an official project of Canonical, but it shares the same base, just a few added packages. If you want the source, you may be able to ask mhancoc7, but I don't see anything wrong with not having it posted as a whole. It was never meant as a completely separate distro as far as I know, just a pre-configured version of Ubuntu.

doobit
December 14th, 2006, 10:22 PM
It's not a distro.
http://www.whatwouldjesusdownload.com/christianubuntu/2006/07/faq.html

deanlinkous
December 14th, 2006, 11:41 PM
They have their own ISOs, the downloads are from various locations (not ubuntu/canonical), you cannot order the cd from shipit yet you can order it from other places, the origin is USA not the Isle of man so....seperate I would say. The source has to come from the same place as the binary. Just saying the source is "somewhere" is not good enough. Also, if they are shipping a cd by mail the source also has to be available by mail. It isn't overly burdensome to provide source after all.

LaserJock
December 15th, 2006, 12:52 AM
I'm pretty sure Jereme has the source code available (perhaps he can put a tarball up of the Ubuntu CE specific parts). Most of the stuff are scripts so the source is right there. I'm pretty sure that everything that require source code to be available has them available from Ubuntu repos. The only thing that might be a possible question is the Ubuntu CE specific stuff that Jereme has written. It might be a good idea to keep a local mirror of the dapper and edgy source handy though, just to make sure.

-LaserJock

mysticrider92
December 15th, 2006, 03:05 AM
I'm pretty sure Jereme has the source code available (perhaps he can put a tarball up of the Ubuntu CE specific parts). Most of the stuff are scripts so the source is right there. I'm pretty sure that everything that require source code to be available has them available from Ubuntu repos. The only thing that might be a possible question is the Ubuntu CE specific stuff that Jereme has written. It might be a good idea to keep a local mirror of the dapper and edgy source handy though, just to make sure.

-LaserJock
Actually, the only thing that isn't really somewhere else is the Dansguardian GUI, and he has a .deb available here, and would probably give you the source or a place to find it if you need it.

mhancoc7
December 15th, 2006, 06:45 AM
Hello,

I was wondering if UCE are providing their own source code and if so where it was?

Thanks!

The source for 99% of Ubuntu CE is the same as that of Ubuntu. I contacted the leader of the Mepis project about this very question. The explanation that I received is that since Ubuntu CE uses the same binarys and repos then the source can be available from Ubuntu.

Now the extra packages (Dansguardian GUI, Ubuntu CE Installer, etc) have the source installed with them in their respective directories.

Jereme

deanlinkous
December 15th, 2006, 11:34 AM
I would suggest contacting the FSF. If you were strictly providing a copy of Ubuntu then that might not be a big deal but as I stated earlier you have your own product branding, your own ISOs and even the download location is seperate from Ubuntu as is the origin. You may be right but everything I have read seems to state anyone providing a binary (changed or not) must provide that source.

mhancoc7
December 15th, 2006, 01:30 PM
I would suggest contacting the FSF. If you were strictly providing a copy of Ubuntu then that might not be a big deal but as I stated earlier you have your own product branding, your own ISOs and even the download location is seperate from Ubuntu as is the origin. You may be right but everything I have read seems to state anyone providing a binary (changed or not) must provide that source.

Just out of curiosity...

Do you have need or desire for the source code or are you just being "nit picky"? I don't mean that rude, I am just trying to figure out your motives here.
Thanks, Jereme

deanlinkous
December 15th, 2006, 03:18 PM
Well I do not consider it to be "nit picky" to ask about source code so that is about the only answer I can give.

Do you have some reason for not providing source code?

mhancoc7
December 16th, 2006, 06:48 AM
Well I do not consider it to be "nit picky" to ask about source code so that is about the only answer I can give.

Do you have some reason for not providing source code?

Fair enough.

The way I see it the source code is available.

Jereme

deanlinkous
December 17th, 2006, 04:32 AM
Well then I guess there is no reason for any distro to offer source, they could all just say it is available.....somewhere. Source code availabiliy is one of the main pillars of free software.

mhancoc7
December 17th, 2006, 04:57 AM
Well then I guess there is no reason for any distro to offer source, they could all just say it is available.....somewhere. Source code availabiliy is one of the main pillars of free software.

Ubuntu CE is just a preconfigured iso based directly from Ubuntu using the Ubuntu repos. The extra packages that are not available from the repos are available in the iso.

Jereme

kosmic
December 17th, 2006, 05:13 AM
Ubuntu CE is just a preconfigured iso based directly from Ubuntu using the Ubuntu repos. The extra packages that are not available from the repos are available in the iso.

Jereme

I think mhancoc7 said it all ;)

HareBall
December 17th, 2006, 05:47 AM
Ubuntu CE is just a preconfigured iso based directly from Ubuntu using the Ubuntu repos. The extra packages that are not available from the repos are available in the iso.

Jereme
I think he is just trying to see if he can get you upset. Don't let him get to you.

yabbadabbadont
December 17th, 2006, 05:51 AM
Ubuntu CE is just a preconfigured iso based directly from Ubuntu using the Ubuntu repos. The extra packages that are not available from the repos are available in the iso.

Jereme

You might want to check with a lawyer, just to be sure.

http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150

mhancoc7
December 17th, 2006, 06:24 AM
I think he is just trying to see if he can get you upset. Don't let him get to you.

He would have to try harder than that. ;)


You might want to check with a lawyer, just to be sure.

http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150

Yes, this is the article that I first referenced when I contacted Warren Woodford. He assured me that I was doing everything required.

Thanks, Jereme

yabbadabbadont
December 17th, 2006, 06:29 AM
He would have to try harder than that. ;)



Yes, this is the article that I first referenced when I contacted Warren Woodford. He assured me that I was doing everything required.

Thanks, Jereme


Cool. Good to know.

deanlinkous
December 17th, 2006, 07:02 AM
Ubuntu CE is just a preconfigured iso based directly from Ubuntu using the Ubuntu repos. The extra packages that are not available from the repos are available in the iso.

Jereme

If you distribute a binary then you are responsible for distributing the source for that binary, period! Doesn't matter if everyone already has that exact same source in fifty million places or not. If you cause someone to have a binary then you must also provide the source.

From that article:

"We think it's pretty clear," says David Turner, GPL compliance engineer at the FSF. "One problem with allowing people to skip out on source code distribution is that there's nothing that requires the upstream distributor to continue to offer source code. If they stop doing so, the source could become totally unavailable. Or, more commonly, the upstream distributor will upgrade the version of the source code available, leaving downstream distributors totally out of sync. In order to fix bugs, users need to get source code exactly corresponding to the binaries they have available."


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.


CentOS has been providing source for all packages, changed and unchanged, in their distribution.


"Before I was contacted by the FSF, I didn't know that we needed to actually offer the source code of binaries we didn't modify,"

From the GPL:

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,

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.)


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.


Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

From the GPL FAQ: (some snipping)
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.

Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. .......

Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements.

I want to make binaries available for anonymous FTP, but send sources only to people who order them.
If you want to distribute binaries by anonymous FTP, you have to distribute sources along with them. This should not be hard. If you can find a site to distribute your program, you can surely find one that has room for the sources.
The sources you provide must correspond exactly to the binaries. In particular, you must make sure they are for the same version of the program--not an older version and not a newer version.
You can make the sources and binaries available on different machines, provided they are equally easy to get to, and provided that you have information next to the binaries saying where to find the sources.


nitpicky enough...

mhancoc7
December 17th, 2006, 07:15 AM
If you distribute a binary then you are responsible for distributing the source ...

nitpicky enough...

You have made your self abundantly clear.
Thank You, Jereme

argie
December 17th, 2006, 08:35 AM
Wouldn't a written assurance to produce source-on-demand valid for 3 years do? I remember reading that somewhere.

EDIT: There you go:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/

I don't think it would be much different in legalese :)

deanlinkous
December 17th, 2006, 08:44 AM
It is more than just a "written assurance" it is

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,
Technically that section does not apply for a download. More importantly would anyone WANT to provide the source for 3 years... ;) That could be a WHOLE lot of source code to keep up with.

doobit
December 17th, 2006, 03:46 PM
If you distribute a binary then you are responsible for distributing the source for that binary, period!


nitpicky enough...

Going by the quotes you gave, Canonical is in vilolation because they don't distribute the source code with their ship it CDs, System 76 is in violation because they don't distribute the source code with the OS on their computers, In fact, the FSF is in violation because they distribute a CD with the source, but not the binaries. In fact, anyone who downloads and burns a CD and passes it out to their friends is in violation unless they also have in their possession a copy of the source code, and offer it to their newbe buddies.

I think that could really put a stop to all this unnecessary distribution of Linux and FOSS!

mysticrider92
December 17th, 2006, 08:23 PM
Are you trying to cause problems with the project or keep it away from legal problems? I don't mean to sound rude, but that is what this thread looks like. All of the source is readily availible. If you look on the download page for the regular Ubuntu, it says that all of the source can be found in their archives or through apt-get. Ubuntu CE uses packages in the regular repositories or from these forums. I personally don't see where we are violating anything.

Henry Rayker
December 17th, 2006, 09:21 PM
Technically that section does not apply for a download. More importantly would anyone WANT to provide the source for 3 years... ;) That could be a WHOLE lot of source code to keep up with.

Just out of curiosity, how does that section not apply to a download? Nowhere in the section does it claim such.

LaserJock
December 17th, 2006, 09:49 PM
I know what Ichthux did was create a mirror of the Dapper source repo on our server machine. Technically if Ubuntu just went away (can't imagine that, but who knows) we could still provide source for everything on the .iso . I'm really not sure if this is absolutely necessary (I'm not a lawyer and I'm not even very knowledgeable about licensing issues) but that is what we did just to be safe. It's pretty simple to use debmirror to grab what you need.

-LaserJock

yabbadabbadont
December 17th, 2006, 10:46 PM
All this discussion is why I asked earlier if the project leaders had consulted with a lawyer. They indicated that they had contacted someone, but didn't indicate if he was an attorney. For that matter, does anyone even know if this particular issue has ever been litigated? If not, there really isn't any precedent to go by when making claims one way or the other.

Henry Rayker
December 18th, 2006, 02:38 AM
wouldn't it just be easier to use a script that installs over the default Ubuntu distro? That way, you don't have to supply the source for anything you don't install...additionally, it could be applied to other Ubuntu distros (and debian based distros)

mhancoc7
December 18th, 2006, 05:57 AM
wouldn't it just be easier to use a script that installs over the default Ubuntu distro? That way, you don't have to supply the source for anything you don't install...additionally, it could be applied to other Ubuntu distros (and debian based distros)

That is true. The script already exists. The reason for the full iso has been dicussed ad nauseum.
Thanks, Jereme

deanlinkous
December 18th, 2006, 06:36 AM
Going by the quotes you gave, Canonical is in vilolation because they don't distribute the source code with their ship it CDs, System 76 is in violation because they don't distribute the source code with the OS on their computers, In fact, the FSF is in violation because they distribute a CD with the source, but not the binaries. In fact, anyone who downloads and burns a CD and passes it out to their friends is in violation unless they also have in their possession a copy of the source code, and offer it to their newbe buddies.

I think that could really put a stop to all this unnecessary distribution of Linux and FOSS!
If you download ubuntu then you can download the source from the same place. If you order a shipit CD then you can look on the cd cover and see the written offer that is required since they do not accompany it with source code.

Nothing wrong with JUST distributing source code. Nobody said you HAD to provide binaries.

Making a copy for a friend is just making a copy for a friend. Yes, you actually have a requirement of passing along the source with it or the written offer with it but since itis a friend then whatever requirements are between friends.... I always ask if they want the source code - no more and no less.

deanlinkous
December 18th, 2006, 06:49 AM
Are you trying to cause problems with the project or keep it away from legal problems? I don't mean to sound rude, but that is what this thread looks like. All of the source is readily availible. If you look on the download page for the regular Ubuntu, it says that all of the source can be found in their archives or through apt-get. Ubuntu CE uses packages in the regular repositories or from these forums. I personally don't see where we are violating anything.

Did you miss my post completely? I quoted from the GPL as well as other sources.

From the GPL:

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:

Notice how it specifically says YOU, not someone else.


equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code

Notice it says the same place, not another place or just anywhere.


by modifying or distributing the Program
Notice it says modifying OR distributing the work. So whether or not you modify anything the license requires you follow the requirements of the license even if just distributing.

I am not trying to cause trouble, I am not trying to keep you out of legal problems. I am pointing out that you need to provide the source code.

deanlinkous
December 18th, 2006, 06:54 AM
Just out of curiosity, how does that section not apply to a download? Nowhere in the section does it claim such.

RMS said it doesn't apply to a download. Some of the key terms is 'equivalent' and 'same place' so if you download a binary then even if you did somehow 'accompany it' with a written offer then that still does not meet the requirements of 'equivalent access' or 'same place' so game over. ;)

You could argue it either way but who wants to provide the source code for three years to a product that you offered for one week?

I actually wonder if that is the reason that Ubuntu only does ship-it for certain releases is because it would be too much of a burden since they include the written offer.

deanlinkous
December 18th, 2006, 07:00 AM
I know what Ichthux did was create a mirror of the Dapper source repo on our server machine. Technically if Ubuntu just went away (can't imagine that, but who knows) we could still provide source for everything on the .iso . I'm really not sure if this is absolutely necessary (I'm not a lawyer and I'm not even very knowledgeable about licensing issues) but that is what we did just to be safe. It's pretty simple to use debmirror to grab what you need.

-LaserJock

Does Ichthux not provide source code right now?

Henry Rayker
December 18th, 2006, 07:29 AM
RMS said it doesn't apply to a download. Some of the key terms is 'equivalent' and 'same place' so if you download a binary then even if you did somehow 'accompany it' with a written offer then that still does not meet the requirements of 'equivalent access' or 'same place' so game over. ;)

You could argue it either way but who wants to provide the source code for three years to a product that you offered for one week?

I actually wonder if that is the reason that Ubuntu only does ship-it for certain releases is because it would be too much of a burden since they include the written offer.

I still don't see exactly how offering source code to anyone who requests it doesn't satisfy b in your a, b, c options for distribution. So long as the offer is valid for 3 years and it is distributed in a format commonly used for software interchange (in this case, via the internet).

You could argue no one would want to provide the source code for three years...but given the audience for this particular project, one could also argue that they won't really care too much for the source code. The project is, in fact, a derivative of Ubuntu, with some additional packages etc. installed. If one really were technically savvy enough to WANT the source code, it could be argued that they probably would have found and installed the packages on their own. Also, arguing that Ubuntu could die before Ubuntu CE is kind of silly, given the fact that Ubuntu CE needs Ubuntu for at least 90% of its functionality.

I'm fairly certain that the burden of the source code offer plays no role whatsoever in the ship-it decision. The version they ship is the LTS, from now on...due to a couple of reasons, first, fewer cds will ship which means less money for them. Secondly, the cost associated with maintaining one version is less than the cost of maintaining 2 or 3 or more.

I think you are forgetting the fact that Ubuntu CE is just putting a Christian face on the underlying Ubuntu product. It's not all just branding, but the number of changes is so slight, it is hardly a new distro.

deanlinkous
December 18th, 2006, 07:56 AM
I still don't see exactly how offering source code to anyone who requests it doesn't satisfy b in your a, b, c options for distribution. So long as the offer is valid for 3 years and it is distributed in a format commonly used for software interchange (in this case, via the internet).

Okay, so in three years you have say....5 releases. Five releases of source code to provide to someone. Do you have any idea how much source code that is. And you are going to provide this AT COST to anyone who requests it. And that is just the actual releases, don't forget betas and so forth on top of updated packages for security reasons and so forth. Most liveCDs install almost two gig of software IIRC which would mean the source code is probably at least three gigs (if not more) and multiply that times 5 releases. OUCH!

Well as I said it could be argued. But you couldn't just offer it to any who request it. You would (at the very least) need to include some written offer. Part B does specifically say that it must be a written offer and it must accompany the work. The word 'accompany' is a specific term.


You could argue no one would want to provide the source code for three years...but given the audience for this particular project, one could also argue that they won't really care too much for the source code.
target audience doesn't matter... I was simply pointing out that the three years could become burdensome VERY quickly.



The project is, in fact, a derivative of Ubuntu, with some additional packages etc. installed. If one really were technically savvy enough to WANT the source code, it could be argued that they probably would have found and installed the packages on their own. Also, arguing that Ubuntu could die before Ubuntu CE is kind of silly, given the fact that Ubuntu CE needs Ubuntu for at least 90% of its functionality.
And a hundred (more actually) distros are derivatives of debian. Should Debian also shoulder the burden for providing source code for all those projects? Every distro is a collection of free software projects that also provide their own source. So why should any distro have to provide source at all?


I'm fairly certain that the burden of the source code offer plays no role whatsoever in the ship-it decision. The version they ship is the LTS, from now on...due to a couple of reasons, first, fewer cds will ship which means less money for them. Secondly, the cost associated with maintaining one version is less than the cost of maintaining 2 or 3 or more. That may be spot on. You could be 100% correct...I honestly dont know.


I think you are forgetting the fact that Ubuntu CE is just putting a Christian face on the underlying Ubuntu product. It's not all just branding, but the number of changes is so slight, it is hardly a new distro.
What is a distro? The word comes from distribution. The term distribution simply means to distribute. To give out. The word distribution is specifically used in the GPL. Not just modification but also JUST distribution. Second, if they are not Ubuntu then they ARE something else....

mhancoc7
December 18th, 2006, 09:53 AM
@deanlinkous (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=130994)

I think the reason that it seems that you are just trying to start trouble is because you seem to be the only one who is very concerned about it.

So if I mirrored the Ubuntu repos onto my own server would that be better. I mean they would still be the EXACT same, and as I have stated the extra packages that I have added that are not in the repos have the source bundled in the iso.

Also you mentioned that the source must be available from the same place as the distribution. Does this mean that every mirror that Ubuntu uses to distribute the iso should also have the source available from there. This seems a bit redundant to me.

Jereme

mhancoc7
December 18th, 2006, 01:49 PM
Making a copy for a friend is just making a copy for a friend. Yes, you actually have a requirement of passing along the source with it or the written offer with it but since itis a friend then whatever requirements are between friends.... I always ask if they want the source code - no more and no less.

It seems to me that you are picking and choosing here. I mean if you are going to "go by the book" then it should apply to every situation.

Now with that said, I agree with you. I just wanted to make the point that we need to interject a little common sense here.

Jereme

deanlinkous
December 18th, 2006, 03:10 PM
If you were missing a license plate from your vehicle, would someone also be starting trouble if they ask you abouti t?

I have drove for two months without a town sticker. Since nobody has asked is it alright to not ever have one again?

( I could go all day with corny scenarios) ;)

Simply a mirror of the source code for the binaries you are distributing. A little section at the bottom of the download page with a link to the source code. All done, neat and tidy....

If you ship a CD then include a written offer and IF anyone requests source then just burn that to a disk and you are good to go.

be well

mysticrider92
December 18th, 2006, 05:31 PM
Did you miss my post completely? I quoted from the GPL as well as other sources.

I am not trying to cause trouble, I am not trying to keep you out of legal problems. I am pointing out that you need to provide the source code.
I saw your post and understand your point, but if you aren't doing this to keep us out of legal problems (I don't think anyone would even care in the first place), it seems pointless to me. I am not a lawyer or attorney or anything, but no one seems to care if we have all the source in one place (btw, why don't we just put links to the download page for each program), I mean, no one is fighting about the libdvdcss stuff unless they just want to prove a point.

I just don't see a point in bringing up all these problems. Linux is free, we have a right to make this, and no one gains anything in stopping it. I don't mean to sound rude, these are just my thoughts on what is on this forum. :confused:

deanlinkous
December 18th, 2006, 05:40 PM
You seem to miss that the requirements of the GPL are not optional. Nobody gains anything if the license is not followed also because then the whole thing falls aparts as a sham since you could do whatever you want with it.

You do NOT have a right to do anything with GPL software unless you meet the requirements of the GPL.

It isn't 'all these problems' it is one requirement that someone (accidently?) overlooked or wasn't aware of the requirements. I am simply pointing it out, take it however you want, turn it into whatever you want.

LaserJock
December 18th, 2006, 07:37 PM
Does Ichthux not provide source code right now?

I said that we do, but I seriously doubt that anybody will need it for packages that are not Ichthux specific. Also, Ichthux is now entirely in the Ubuntu repos so Ubuntu handles the source for us.

I understand what you are trying to say and I do think it's indeed wise for people with repos and derivatives to understand their obligations under the GPL. However, I think you could probably stop pushing it now. Everybody has got the point. The interpretation of that part of the GPL can be a bit muddy and as far as I know there hasn't been any litigation regarding a derivative distro.

My understanding is that if Jereme kept a local mirror of the source packages for what he ships on the .iso (Dapper and Edgy Main source) and includes an offer to send that to people requesting it he would be entirely OK. This would be fairly easy to do and perhaps he has already done so.

-LaserJock

deanlinkous
December 18th, 2006, 08:43 PM
You are not Ubuntu.... What Ubuntu provides or does not provide is irrelevant.

It isn't about what I am saying, it is what the GPL says.

I really don't think you do have the point at all.

GPL FAQ:

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.


I want to make binaries available for anonymous FTP, but send sources only to people who order them.
If you want to distribute binaries by anonymous FTP, you have to distribute sources along with them.

What am I pushing?

I think I will write a article - would you like to go on record as saying that Ichtux does not provide a download/mail order of source code for their distribution?

LaserJock
December 18th, 2006, 09:39 PM
You are not Ubuntu.... What Ubuntu provides or does not provide is irrelevant.

It isn't about what I am saying, it is what the GPL says.

I really don't think you do have the point at all.

GPL FAQ:




What am I pushing?

I think I will write a article - would you like to go on record as saying that Ichtux does not provide a download/mail order of source code for their distribution?

My goodness, please read what I'm saying. Ichthux is developed entirely within Ubuntu so it's binaries and source a distributed with Ubuntu. If people want the source code sent to them on a CD fine. I am saying that we do provide the source, for the 3rd time.

There was 1 release where we had a 3rd party repo for some of our packages. We made available the source of those packages + mirror of the Ubuntu packages that went on the .iso . Now that we develop within Ubuntu we no longer do that because we don't provide binaries outside of Ubuntu.

Note this from the GPL FAQ:

The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".

In the case of both Ichthux and Ubuntu CE a link to the Ubuntu source would be sufficient. If Ubuntu ceased to exist and stopped distributing source then Ubuntu CE and Ichthux would have much bigger troubles than the GPL.

-LaserJock

deanlinkous
December 18th, 2006, 09:49 PM
However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".

You have this agreement with Ubuntu? Ubuntu has stated that they agree to provide your source code? If so, then yes you are correct. That would be very good information to have on your download page so that people like me know that you have that arrangement. I am surprised Ubuntu agreed to this - it is rare because of the liability of it.

deanlinkous
December 18th, 2006, 10:25 PM
Ichthux is developed entirely within Ubuntu
huh? So you are a part of Ubuntu?

LaserJock
December 18th, 2006, 11:00 PM
You have this agreement with Ubuntu? Ubuntu has stated that they agree to provide your source code? If so, then yes you are correct. That would be very good information to have on your download page so that people like me know that you have that arrangement. I am surprised Ubuntu agreed to this - it is rare because of the liability of it.

Well, we don't have an explicit agreement. I'm talking about Ubuntu's requirements under the GPL since Ichthux are a part of Ubuntu I assumed it would apply. I've been talking with some of my FSF-head friends and in their opinion it isn't enough. They say that anywhere where the .iso is distributed the source must be also.

I think this is a serious failing in the GPL but it does seem to be what the wording is. Mepis had similar problems. For a small derivative distribution this is killer and a serious hampering to the Freedom that the FSF and GPL attempt to preserve.

So, as far as I can tell. Any Ubuntu derivative within Ubuntu would either have to get an agreement with Ubuntu, house the source packages for each .iso they release, or get Ubuntu to distribute the .isos . We'll see how it plays out.

-LaserJock

LaserJock
December 18th, 2006, 11:01 PM
huh? So you are a part of Ubuntu?

Yes, it's an Ubuntu derivative that's a part of the Ubuntu community. It's not as official as Xubuntu is (i.e. Ubuntu doesn't house the .isos) but the packages are a part of the Ubuntu repos.

-LaserJock

deanlinkous
December 19th, 2006, 03:54 AM
They say that anywhere where the .iso is distributed the source must be also.

Did you inform them they were starting trouble, and pushing stuff, and they needed to drop it. :)



I think this is a serious failing in the GPL but it does seem to be what the wording is. Mepis had similar problems. For a small derivative distribution this is killer and a serious hampering to the Freedom that the FSF and GPL attempt to preserve.

Don't agree! I think this is the greatest strength of the FSF/GPL. If you can host ISOs then you can certainly host some source code.


So, as far as I can tell. Any Ubuntu derivative within Ubuntu would either have to get an agreement with Ubuntu, house the source packages for each .iso they release, or get Ubuntu to distribute the .isos
Sounds about right. I won't get too picky again.... ;)

deanlinkous
December 20th, 2006, 07:09 PM
have to get an agreement with Ubuntu <snip> get Ubuntu to distribute the .isos
I would be very interested to know if you manage either of these options, especially the first one.

Any kind of time frame for a corrective action regarding the source code issue?

LaserJock
December 21st, 2006, 05:30 AM
Well, it seems other people had the same concerns. A recent post on the ubuntu-devel asked this question:


> What is the consensus about distributing the source code for these
> derivatives? Since they are tweaked Ubuntu distros, does one comply
> to the GPL by pointing to the Ubuntu archives for the source code? Or
> do they have to distribute the source code themselves?

Where they're using identical source code from a supported Ubuntu release,
they can point to us. Where they're modifying or adding software, they need
to provide that source code.

The reply is from Matt Zimmerman, Canonical's CTO, so I'm going to take that as positive arrangement.

The message is at https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2006-December/023080.html

I've sent a reply asking Matt if this applies to both Main and Universe or just Main. We'll have to see.

-LaserJock

deanlinkous
December 21st, 2006, 05:59 AM
That does sound like a agreement....
I just wonder if he knows what he is getting into...

So assume canonical get sued, court order to stop distributing and now twenty derivatives and all those users are without source code. Interesting...

mhancoc7
December 21st, 2006, 06:01 AM
Well, it seems other people had the same concerns. A recent post on the ubuntu-devel asked this question:



The reply is from Matt Zimmerman, Canonical's CTO, so I'm going to take that as positive arrangement.

The message is at https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2006-December/023080.html

I've sent a reply asking Matt if this applies to both Main and Universe or just Main. We'll have to see.

-LaserJock

Awesome!!

I have also contacted Canonical to see if I could point to their source archive. I have not heard back, but this seems to answer the question nicely.

Thank, Jereme

mhancoc7
December 21st, 2006, 06:12 AM
That does sound like a agreement....
I just wonder if he knows what he is getting into...

So assume canonical get sued, court order to stop distributing and now twenty derivatives and all those users are without source code. Interesting...

I regret to say it, but I am pretty sure nothing would make you happy with this.

Jereme

deanlinkous
December 21st, 2006, 06:56 AM
divine inspiration to know how people feel is it?

MetalMusicAddict
December 21st, 2006, 10:45 AM
deanlinkous I would say that if you have such a problem with this then sue. If Canonical wants to offer derivatives its support in this way good.

It does seem now that we have a official answer, your still not happy, your just picking. I agree with your view in this thread but you have your answer and dont seem happy with it. Am I wrong?

So if it really still bothers you, take it up with Canonical. As I say about many issues here, "Complaining on the forums does no good"

deanlinkous
December 21st, 2006, 02:02 PM
Can you point out the parts of my posts that show me as "unhappy" about thisplease?

I cant sue? I don't hold copyright...

Someone decided to make a smart-aleky remark and I returned one - tit for tat....

I have no problems with this. I do have problems if the requirements of the GPL are not met. I do find it interesting that a million derivatives are going to spring up and Ubuntu is going to be mailing and offering downloads of source for them all. One point of failure is always bad. :P

mhancoc7
December 21st, 2006, 03:35 PM
Can you point out the parts of my posts that show me as "unhappy" about thisplease?

Well out of the 200,000 plus members of this forum you are the only one "pushing" this issue.

I do not have an issue with your point, it is just the way you keep pushing it.

The fact is, we have received what I believe is a sufficient answer so I guess this thread has really been answered.

I apologize for any rudeness on my part.

Jereme

deanlinkous
December 21st, 2006, 03:49 PM
Well out of the 200,000 plus members of this forum you are the only one "pushing" this issue.
So if I am the only one that cares....what...I should just NOT care because nobody else does? I will be sure to let the officer know that when he stops me to ask about my town sticker he is "pushing" it since numerous other officers have not asked about it.


I do not have an issue with your point, it is just the way you keep pushing it.
pushing what? If ten people respond to my post then I will make 10 replies and they will likely duplicate information. Certainly you are not saying that everyone has a right to respond to my post yet I am "pushing" it if I respond to their posts?


The fact is, we have received what I believe is a sufficient answer so I guess this thread has really been answered.
I think it would be a grey issue until he specifically states that he speaks for Ubuntu and that they AGREE to provide source code for every derivative. Maybe he just thinks it is acceptable to point upstream since a derivative did not modify anything. That is clearly incorrect. But if he is saying that Ubuntu agrees to provide source then yes that is the end of it.


I apologize for any rudeness on my part.
kind of pointless to apologize in the same post you use the term "pushing" isn't it?

mhancoc7
December 22nd, 2006, 12:41 AM
I give up.

mhancoc7
December 22nd, 2006, 01:21 AM
For those interested, the Ubuntu CE project site has been updated to include a link to download the Ubuntu CE source code.

Check it out here (http://www.whatwouldjesusdownload.com/christianubuntu/2006/12/source.html).

Jereme

deanlinkous
December 22nd, 2006, 03:07 AM
How does anyone reach that link?
Going to put it on the download page?

Looks good!

Now if you quit giving me a hard time for asking about something then I will quit giving you a hard time about what I am asking about. ;)

deanlinkous
December 22nd, 2006, 03:47 AM
here is the email I received....


On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 08:53:55PM -0800, Dean Linkous wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:54:06PM -0500, Andrew Zajac wrote:
>>> On 12/13/06, Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If your tool makes this process easier, then everyone is
>>>> happy. Thanks for your concern.
>>>
>>> What is the consensus about distributing the source code for these
>>> derivatives? Since they are tweaked Ubuntu distros, does one comply
>>> to the GPL by pointing to the Ubuntu archives for the source code? Or
>>> do they have to distribute the source code themselves?
>>
> >Where they're using identical source code from a supported Ubuntu release,
> >they can point to us. Where they're modifying or adding software, they need
> >to provide that source code.
>
> So you are saying that Ubuntu is actually agreeing to provide the require source code
> for any derivatives? If those derivatives ship a cd with the written offer of source
> code then Ubuntu is willing to provide the source by mail for three years also? I know
> fedora will not do this because of the responsibility as well as the liability.
>
> The FSF position AFAIK is that if you distribute a binary then you must distribute the
> source code yourself regardless if anything is modified or not or you must have a actual
> agreement with upstream to provide your obligation for source code.
>
> I did not want to chit-chat about this on the devel list so I hope off-list is okay.

Yes, we are willing to provide such an agreement in support of derivatives
who need it.

--
- mdz

mhancoc7
December 22nd, 2006, 04:56 AM
How does anyone reach that link?
Going to put it on the download page?

A link to that page is on the download pages for both the Dapper (http://www.whatwouldjesusdownload.com/christianubuntu/2006/11/ubuntu-ce-v151-dapper-downloads.html) and Edgy (http://www.whatwouldjesusdownload.com/christianubuntu/2006/11/ubuntu-ce-v20-edgy-downloads.html) versions of Ubuntu CE.


Looks good!

Thanks


Now if you quit giving me a hard time for asking about something then I will quit giving you a hard time about what I am asking about. ;)

Agreed! :D


here is the email I received....

Sounds good to me!

Thanks, Jereme