GPL compliance

[Mario Vukelic]

On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 09:48 -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> You're supposed
> to have licenses from of _ALL_ owners of IP on the CD, not just the
> owner of the most recent derivative, and there are thousands of them.

Are you saying that we don't have those? Right, therefore GNU/Linux
distributions don't exist.
Please take a look at /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright for any piece
of software that is installed.

> Canonical shares ownership of the IP on the CD with many and one owner
> can't speak for the many.  The hope is that all of these other owners
> have previously licensed the software to everyone with some kind of
> general public license, be it FSF GPL, BSD, MIT, X11, etc.  But if
> they're nasty licenses with magic statement clauses, then you should
> (?) worry about your magic statements for all.

What are you talking about? Ubuntu main and AFAIK universe repositories
consist entirely of Free and Open Source software:
http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/philosophy

The restricted and multiverse repositories are different, but are also
redistributable. Read up here: http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/components

Read up on Free and Open Source software:
http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/licensing
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php


> To repeat for clarity: That license that covers the CD is only between
> you and Canonical and only applies to the IP owned by Canonical. 

This is complete nonsense. Well, maybe the license that covers "the CD"
does. The _software_ on the CD however is mostly licensed under GPL,
BSD, and several other licenses that all grant these fundamental
freedoms (in the definition of the Free Software Foundation): 
      * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
      * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
        needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition
        for this.
      * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
        (freedom 2).
      * The freedom to improve the program, and release your
        improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
        (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for
        this.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Again, see /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright

>  If
> open-source licenses are to have much usefulness, there has to be
> implied acceptance of the terms of the licenses of each of the other
> owners (contracts with each owner), whether you're aware of them or
> not.

I can't follow you here

> So if your worry is ensuring that you've complied with the GPL, you're
> going to end up worrying, or more likely you'll make some token effort
> that will make you feel good enough to forget about the issues. 

I'm still lost

>  Of
> course, if your only worry is keeping Canonical happy, then you've got
> a good plan there, though I doubt if they care.  Most fugidaboudit.

Why don't you read the licenses?

> But we both seem to have missed 3(a),
> which some publishers seem to interpret to be satisfied by keeping the
> source on line, without a statement (a "written offer", whatever that
> might mean). 

This interpretation might just come from the fact that 3(a) does not
require a "written offer", no?

----
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.)
------

The GPL here clearly says that you have to do _either (a) _or (b) (or
(c)): either accompany the program with the source code in a usable
format, or accompany it with a written offer for such. Or, as in
Daniel's (non-commercial) case, refer the receiving party to the Ubuntu
sources (which it seems is done by a printed statement on the CD
cover) .

>  I wouldn't be a bit suprised if you can't find such a
> statement by any owner of IP on the CD.  I can't say I remember ever
> seeing one, and I often pay attention to these sorts of things.  And
> I've probably not seen an unwritten offer, either.  :)

Again, as per GPL 3(a), (b) and (c), there is no need for such a
statement because the source code as released by the developer (this is
what you refer to as "owner of IP" in your newspeak) usually is readily
available in a useable form from the same servers as the binaries. 
If however a developer does not have the source code readily available,
then of course a written statement is in order.

> These legal niceties are worse than a can of worms and you can never
> be sure how licensors and/or courts would deal with them until you put
> them to the test, and it seems impossible to avoid taking risks by
> ignoring stuff.  Of course, you're advised to get legal advice (i.e.,
> advice from a hired lawyer) before doing anything.

Don't spread FUD, please. In reality, the distribution mechanics and
legalities are well established. E.g., many distributions started by
taking another distribution as a starting point. Suse started from
Slackware, Mandriva started from Red Hat, as did CentOS and White Box
Linux. Ubuntu, MEPIS, Xandros, Linspire and countless others started
from Debian (and some regularly sync with it).

It is generally agreed upon that the absence of license related lawsuits
in the FOSS world are indication of the GPL (and others) are quite solid
legally.

To be safe you basically just need a list of the license of the software
in a distribution, and you know what you can do. And you can always
consult with the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance.html
Of course, if you're going to get serious about it, talking to a lawyer
is always a good idea, as in any business endeavor.