Ubuntu from source

[Florian Diesch]

Derek Broughton <derek at pointerstop.ca> writes:

> 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).

Only if they "received the program in object code or executable form
with such an offer". But as they get them as source alternative c) is
not allowed and they have to distribute the source.


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