Re: xmysqladmin license non-free (no modification) ?

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:
> Martin Bialasinski wrote:

> > A Debian package consists of the binary- and the source
> > package. Together, they form the version of a program we
> > distribute. So we do distribute xmysqladmin with full sources,
> > just as the license demands.

> So it's unclear whether we met the license requirements on this,

I think it is without doubt that Debian as such meets any kind of
license requirement that says that a binary distribution must be
accompanied by sources. Anyone who downloads a binary package
from one of Debian's FTP mirrors also has the option to get the
source tarballs without any extra fuss.

Some licenses explicitly say that this count as distributing source
[GPL, last pragraph of section 3]; for other licenses it is a very
reasonable default interpretation which I (though not being a lawyer)
though can be defended in court easly. Simply, nobody benefits,
neither materially nor morally from forcing the user to download
the source and then simply delete it from his harddisk afterwards.

> or at least make it easy for CD vendors to break the license,

This is a more open question. It is commonly assumed that a CD vendor
who sells disks with the .debs must also offer disks with the
.orig.tar.gzs (and .diff.gzs) for a price that does not exceed the
per-disk cost of his binary disks. I feel that the tacit assumption
is that this is a necessary and sufficient condition for being on
the right side of the law.

I do not think that any actual free software author feels bad about
that practise, but the question is whether we can justify it by the
letter of the licenses.

For GPL, there is no problem. There is the infamous "written offer,
valid for at least three years" phrase - but the CD vendors ought to
know that; anyone who starts manufacturing Linux CDs without having
read the GPL is lacking enough common sense that nothing Debian could
do would help him. The GPL's requirement can be met simply by
inserting a slip saying "we also sell source CDs; send your order to
this-and-this address". The vendor would have to keep back-up copies
of the source CDs for three years after the last binary disk has been
shipped. If some maniac orders a source CD for buzz and refuses to
take anything newer, they simply burn one for him. The marginal costs
of doing this is higher than simply shipping a pressed binary disk,
but the few occurences will just have to be amortized over the price
of the binary disks.

The problem comes with other licenses that do not define "distributing
with source" as elaborately as the GPL. As it stands, some of them do
not allow selling binary disks separately even if source disks are
also offered.

Debian can then chose among

a) not doing anything, except from possibly reminding the CD vendors
   that if they sell binary disks separately they do so at their
   own peril. The risk of being sued by unhappy programmers should
   be minimal (but IANAL and nobody must expect me to pay if they
   trust me on this and it turns out I was wrong).

b) Keep doing (a) for the time being but set an explicit goal
   for release 2.3 that the licenses of all packages should
   explicitly allow separate distribution of binary disks when
   source disks are also offered.
   This would probably involve changing the DFSG which is a can
   of worms in itself; and some packages would be lost because
   it is impossible to contact the authors to solicit a license
   clarification.

> Christoph Martin informed us that tetex-src because the orig.tar.gz
> file were stripped of documentation that must be redistribution, and
> so they are in a separate tetex-src package.

I think that is another question. Apparently the .orig.tar for tetex
does not actually contain the very original sources. I don't know
exactly why, but I suspect it is because there are more layers of
packaging involved than we are used to. (I.e. teTeX is itself more
kin to Linux distribution than to the average code tarball).

> However, I just noticed that the license doesn't say that we are
> allowed to _modify_ the software.

If that is correct it is indeed a serious problem, which (as far as
that package is concerned) supersedes the general discussion above.

-- 
Henning Makholm                               "... turning pussies into pies
                                                      Wouldn't do in my shop
                            just the thought of it's enough to make you sick
                           and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ..."