Christofer C. Bell
christofer.c.bell at gmail.com
Sun Dec 24 11:31:12 GMT 2006
On 12/20/06, Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com> 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.
Matt, I'm not sure that's good enough. At least not according to the
Free Software Foundation. If one is creating a derivative
distribution, that author must provide the sources to *all* software
they are distributing, even that which they've not modified. Has this
stance on the FSF's part changed?
Note, this isn't just a MEPIS problem (although MEPIS is probably one
of the most visible), this is an issue for *everyone*, including
Ubuntu and including anyone who modifies and redistributes Ubuntu.
"George 'Macaca' Allen is like the place kicker that blew the winning
field goal at the Super Bowl. He's why the Republicans lost control
of the Senate."
More information about the ubuntu-devel