Ubuntu from source
Derek Broughton
derek at pointerstop.ca
Wed Sep 23 23:59:35 UTC 2009
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
More information about the ubuntu-users
mailing list