Re: Where's the source of wanna-build?
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 07:20:42AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Dude, read your GPL.
>> The GPL requires:
>> 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.)
>> Neither b nor c can be applied to an apt repository and has never been
>> used by Debian (Unless there is such an offer in the Release file or
>> something you might think up).
> <harumph> And among those things that the GPL *doesn't* say is, "The
> source code for a work means a Debian source package." Almost all the
> contents of the buildd package are written in a scripting language of
> some sort, with the exception of a single compiled wrapper.
That depends on if you see the deb as aggregation of seperate works or
as a complet work constructed from the GPL parts. I would say the deb
is more than the collection of scripts it contains. The debian dir and
esspecially rules file is essential to building the deb.
And since the GPL requires to include the build scripts there is stuff
missing even on top of the wraper source.
>> From a legal point it certainly is. Debian (or rather the person
>> responsible for the server) is responsible for not doing something
> While it's reasonable to request access to source code for the wrapper,
> it seems a gross overreaction to talk about its omission being
> "illegal", when it's just as likely that the copyright file has
> misattributed authorship to Roman of a wrapper that James wrote (in
> which case he's within his rights to engage in binary-only distribution
> of a work he's placed under the GPL).
Maybe James is the only person that could sue himself for distributing
it. Doesn't make it right though.
Compare with the evil firmware in the kernel flamewar.