Ubuntu from source

[Derek Broughton]

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