On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 10:33:15AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> The current status quo:
> a) Company A collects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
> that runs the system (life system). This ISO only contains
> binary packages, no source. This CD is sold and distributed
> freely through the internet.
> When asked about the source of the binary CD, company A points
> to ftp.debian.org.
> b) An entity B (could be a company, or a single person, or a
> project) lects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
> that runs the system (life system). This ISO only contains
> binary packages, no source. This ISO image is distributed
> freely through the internet and is sold on CD at an exhibition.
> When asked about the source of the binary CD, B points to
> ftp.debian.org.
> Questions:
> 1. Is either a) or b) in complience with the GPL (assuming all
> software is licensed using the GNU GPL.
Section 3c) of the GPL:
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.)
This is the only clause of the GPL that permits someone to distribute
binaries without also making source available on their own dime, and it
only applies to noncommercial distribution. A sale constitutes
commercial distribution. Therefore, in both a) and b), pointing to
ftp.debian.org does not satisfy the distributor's obligations under the
GPL.
If company A or entity B is actually AFFILIATED with ftp.debian.org, note
that this might be construed as a written offer under GPL section 3b).
However, the fact that you did not call entity B 'Debian' suggests this
is not the real-world case you're interested in.
> 2. Is a) or b) in complience with the DFSG aka OSD?
Mu. DFSG and OSD apply only to software licenses, not to behaviors.
> 3. Is it a problem if ftp.debian.org removes the source of the same
> version of a package that is used on the cd and installs a newer
> version? (i.e. source of a package is available, but not exactly
> the proper source).
It is a problem if anyone is using ftp.debian.org to comply with section
3b) of the GPL. Debian complies with the GPL under section 3a), so it's
only an issue for others trying to reference our archive in this manner.
Actually, since we're using 3a) for our archive rather than 3b), I guess
no one else can cite 3c) by pointing to our archive anyway, so they're
in violation whether or not we remove some of the referenced source.
> 4. What would be the proper way to solve this problem if a) or b) are
> not in complience with the license terms?
Are you asking what A and B should do if they wish to bring themselves
into compliance, or are you asking what can be done to legally force
them to?
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp3BZnWkLrlL.pgp
Description: PGP signature