Ubuntu from source

[Florian Diesch]

Derek Broughton <derek at pointerstop.ca> writes:

> 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.


GPL v2 says:

,----
|   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.)
|
| [...]  
| If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
| access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
| access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
| distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
| compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
`----

So if you distribute binaries it doesn't matter if they are modified
or not. If you compiled them yourself or if you distribute them
commercially you have to offer the source code.

That means Ubuntu has to offer the source code either in its repos or on
demand.


   Florian
-- 
<http://www.florian-diesch.de/software/pdfrecycle/>