Ubuntu from source

[Derek Broughton]

Rashkae wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Rashkae wrote:
>> 
>>> Not really, the ubuntu repos include source for all packages, as
>>> required by GPL.
>> 
>> Strictly speaking, the ubuntu repos don't have to include source for any
>> package they don't modify - they just have to tell you where you can get
>> it. Practically, it's easier to put all the source on their own repos.
> 
> Strictly speaking, you are wrong.  Forgive me if I don't quote you
> directly from the GPL, since I'm lazy, but Mephis ran headfirst into
> this problem.  Distributing a binary of a GPL program, modified or not,
> requires that you make the source available to the recipients of the
> binary.  You can comply with this by including a written offer to send
> the source for a nominal fee, but it turns out it's just easier and less
> complicated to simply include the source with the repos.  

How on Earth does that explanation differ in any way from what I said?

> It's not
> sufficient to just rely on upstream.  (after all, upstream is under no
> obligation to keep offering the version of the source that you happen to
> have packaged.)

Of course they're not.  I also specifically said "for any package they don't 
modify".  That is, _they didn't package_.  The fact is, Ubuntu _does_ 
repackage everything, but they don't have to. I have a right to redistribute 
Ubuntu packages - unmodified.  If I do so, I _don't_ have to provide source 
- I can point users to Ubuntu, or charge them for shipping.  As for "under 
no obligation to keep offering the version of the source..." - actually, 
they are.  There's a reason why Ubuntu has repos for no-longer-supported 
releases.
-- 
derek