Ubuntu from source
Derek Broughton
derek at pointerstop.ca
Thu Sep 24 02:26:49 UTC 2009
Florian Diesch wrote:
> Derek Broughton <derek at pointerstop.ca> writes:
>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> 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:
> |
...
> | 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.)
...
> 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.
Once again, you're telling me I'm wrong by agreeing with what I said.
Ubuntu is _not_ a commercial distribution, and could (but doesn't) simply
redistribute binary packages, per section 3C, and point users to the source
from which they got _their_ package (ie, the "offer" they received).
Sure, it's legalese, but it's really _simple_ legalese and shouldn't be that
hard to understand.
--
derek
More information about the ubuntu-users
mailing list