Concerns

[Christofer C. Bell]

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[1].  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.

[1] http://software.newsforge.com/software/06/06/23/1728205.shtml

-- 
Chris

"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."