Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Tue 07 Jul 2020, 12:57
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
GPL violation
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 2 [16 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Author Message
ajd - modified
Guest


PostPosted: Fri 06 May 2005, 22:22    Post subject:  GPL violation  

Where's the source offer required by the GPL sec 3c? Puppy is a copyright violation!

<WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN ADMIN EDIT - Coz this guy is a bit of a FudMonkey>
OK, I spoke to the guy on IRC after this post, pointed out that only thing that could "possibly" after careful reading of the GPL violate it is the CD that Barry charges for (the GPL is very specific on what that must contain).

Anyway, the end of the IRC transcript (As Flash is my witness Wink ).


Code:

ajd        I've emailed fsf
JohnM_     The distribution is not.
JohnM_     Anyway, why are you so overzealous ?
ajd        Because I am a free software supporter
JohnM_     Simply asking Barry to include the sources on his
           CD may have been more ... Polite
ajd        Freedom, freedom, freedom and source
ajd        oh well
ajd        goodbye, i'm signing off
|<--   ajd has left freenode ("Leaving")
JohnM_     Ah, a free software supporter would be wary of creating tension that may affect the
           motivation of those working on a free software project

<ADMIN EDIT END>
Back to top
JohnMurga
Site Admin


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 594
Location: Far to the east

PostPosted: Fri 06 May 2005, 23:14    Post subject:  

Hey

I am not sure what you mean, Barry has to post his modifications to source under the GPL, and given that his modifications are scripts they are source in themselves.

Other than that the source has to be available for what compiled apps he includes, but as they are all default builds it is ...

The only thing that may not be covered by this is the Kernel source, which I am sure would be easy enough to make available and I think there are provisions for that in the GPL.

There are many pieces of software in Puppy and not not all are GPL, even the GPL has a couple of versions with subtle but important differences.

Please clarify your sensational remark Smile

Otherwise people might be forgiven for seeing this as an attempt to spread FUD

Cheers
JohnM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Lobster
Official Crustacean


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 15588
Location: Paradox Realm

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2005, 01:01    Post subject:  

Puppy is getting noticed. So expect more of this kind of reminder from the well meaning "free software newby"

Such a person allows us to educate ourselves to our rights to Puppy and so on.

We could have a page on the wiki from the Info page devoted to this topic and people interested can be directed there.

So what is the current understanding

Question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
JohnMurga
Site Admin


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 594
Location: Far to the east

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2005, 03:23    Post subject:  

Current understanding is that Puppy is safe, source links are provided in a variety of places and Barry's modifications by their very nature are open source as they are scripts ...

It is also worth noting that there a quite a few different licences in Puppy, Mozilla, LGPL, BSD, etc ... All of which are much more relaxed.

The section in question of the GPL is :

Code:
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.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

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.


Which is why comercial distro's have to include source CD's ... Unless Barry sells a CD and doesn't include the sources for all GPL packages on the CD there isn't a problem.

So Puppy is pretty safe ... As are the rest of the live CDs out there Laughing

The guy must have been some kind of troll, before we started talking about this he was talking about making his own LiveCD, so he might have an agenda... Either way he is not at all convincing.

Anyway
There you go

Let him write to the FSF, they'll tell him the same thing.

Cheers
JohnM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Guest
Guest


PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2005, 03:52    Post subject:  

Why don't we advertise that Puppy conforms to LGPL?
I'm far from knowledgeable about this, but isn't LGPL somewhat more lax about commercial content -- I'm thinking that we have Opera and Planmaker, both closed source, though free.
Also, the CD that I sell has lots of source on it, but not the source of all the apps, as it wouldn't fit on one CD -- but it's all open source, so I can provide download links, and indeed there is a page with many links.

And you're right, the only extra thing added to these open source apps (plus the Planmaker/Opera exceptions) is the scripts. It's the scripts that make Puppy what he is, and they are by nature open source.
There is absolutely nothing that we/I have put into Puppy anywhere that is closed source.

But, Puppy is no different from any of the other small distros. DSL, for example, sells a CD, binary only, no source. Austrumi has Opera. SAM has Planmaker, Textmaker.
Back to top
Rich

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 278
Location: Middlesbrough - UK

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2005, 05:05    Post subject:  

Barry wrote:

Also, the CD that I sell has lots of source on it,


Is it actually classed as selling???
The reason I ask is that for the princely sum of 6 GBP ( approx ) you'll buy the CD, burn it ( time ) and mail it to the other side of the world. Surely the fee is only covering your personal costs. That's how I view it anyway. Selling usually implies profit !

.........just a thought !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Lobster
Official Crustacean


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 15588
Location: Paradox Realm

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2005, 05:12    Post subject:  

OK this is just a stub (start of the licence page)

- interested parties can leave suggestions, format and so on

http://www.goosee.com/puppy/wikka/Licence
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
JohnMurga
Site Admin


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 594
Location: Far to the east

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2005, 11:32    Post subject:  

Hey

This probably doesn't merit that much additional conversation, the guy was just a troll, otherwise he would have been polite and specific.

Quote:
But, Puppy is no different from any of the other small distros. DSL, for example, sells a CD, binary only, no source. Austrumi has Opera. SAM has Planmaker, Textmaker.


That is the thing to remember, you are not doing anything wrong ... And in any case any complaint would have to be specific in nature so that you where able to address the issue with the package in question.

Quote:
Why don't we advertise that Puppy conforms to LGPL?

I'm far from knowledgeable about this, but isn't LGPL somewhat more lax about commercial content -- I'm thinking that we have Opera and Planmaker, both closed source, though free.


Hehehe, you cannot do that ... The reason why some of these licenses are sometimes called "viral" is that you cannot change the terms of the end result (unlike say with BSD), however, it is very important to remember that those terms apply only to the packages that are licensed under the GPL, NOT the distribution as a whole.

Quote:
Also, the CD that I sell has lots of source on it, but not the source of all the apps, as it wouldn't fit on one CD -- but it's all open source, so I can provide download links, and indeed there is a page with many links.


The code in question would only be what is subject to the GPL, I think you'd be surprised by how little that actually is as all the software licensed under Mozilla, LGPL, BSD, etc would not be subject to this.

Making sure people know that source links are on the developer's page might be a good idea (although rather obvious to anyone approaching this with good faith).

Cheers
JohnM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
EarlSmith

Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 197
Location: Chelsea, Alabama, USA

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2005, 23:18    Post subject:  

Just have a source link page. If anybody wants one they can go get it. Free to try software but pay for full program software isn't a problem. Or better yet, make this a membership only forum. When you apply, have everyone pay a $1 or some small fee and make every thing commercial. That way we all get the software and no legal problems and Barry gets some support.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
JohnMurga
Site Admin


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 594
Location: Far to the east

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2005, 23:21    Post subject:  

Things are fine the way they are.

This guy sought to agitate and he is getting his way.

I vote we just relax as there really isn't an issue here Wink

Cheers
JohnM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
ajd

Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed 11 May 2005, 04:05    Post subject: The response from the Free Software Foundation  

This is what I got from the FSF:

> [ajdlinux@gmail.com - Sat May 07 00:11:23 2005]:
>
> The linux distro Puppy Linux (http://www.goosee.com/puppy) does not
> have an offer for sourcecode. Is this a violation of the GPL?

Yes. I've written to them about this, and hopefully, will hear back
soon. It's probably just an oversight, which will be easily fixed.

--
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation

So I was right. Even the FSF says so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
JohnMurga
Site Admin


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 594
Location: Far to the east

PostPosted: Wed 11 May 2005, 09:48    Post subject:  

Hi,

Quote:
So I was right. Even the FSF says so.


There is an offer for sourcecode on the developer page... Your mail to the FSF was just as inciting to trouble as I feared it would be. If this e-mail is authentic there is no mention wether it is the CD that is affected (as it said it might be), or the downloads.

I feel you may have some axe to grind.

I consider your posts border on the inflamatory (you have made two posts and both where in the same vein and devoid of actual evidence), and I see them as highly unhelpful.

Please feel free to offer evidence to support either of your two claims and join the community in trying to produce a free software product for the greater good (even helping where you feel people have missed the ball).

If this doesn't apeal to you, and you feel the need to continue posting disruptive material to this forum please consider this your first formal warning.

Your choice is clear, it is all up to you...

Please have a think about things.

Cheers
JohnM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
ajd

Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed 11 May 2005, 19:47    Post subject: where is the developer page?  

If you can tell me where the offer is, I'll stop complaining. But until then...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Flash
Official Dog Handler


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 13645
Location: Arizona USA

PostPosted: Wed 11 May 2005, 20:23    Post subject: Re: where is the developer page?  

ajd wrote:
If you can tell me where the offer is, I'll stop complaining. But until then...

Near the bottom of this page.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
JohnMurga
Site Admin


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 594
Location: Far to the east

PostPosted: Wed 11 May 2005, 23:22    Post subject:  

Quote:
If you can tell me where the offer is, I'll stop complaining. But until then...


I have told you twice (on IRC and here), but you seem more interested in slinging mud than doing basic research Sad

Your attitude hurts the GPL (by misrepresenting it and people like me who believe in it), free software (by seeking to disrrupt a genuinely free software project) and Morphix itself by mentioning it when you yourself are attracting negative attention.

I'd be careful with the "until then" talk as you have already been cautined, and anyway, now that the FSF is on the case you count for nothing. I'll have a word with Alex (who hopefully remembers me), and see if he can knock some sense into you.

Cheers
JohnM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 2 [16 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0598s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0064s) ][ GZIP on ]