In GNU's own words... (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL...)
In message <[🔎] 878zq18xvd.fsf@ariel.local.net>, Brian Mays writes:
>Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>> > Is it also illegal to email a 20 line, GPLed, .c file to someone,
>> > without attaching the entire GPL?
>
>tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>> Probably, but it's also harmless.
>
>Hmm ... where do you draw the line?
>
[this mail is more of a general discussion than a response to Brian.]
[caution: healthy doses of sarcasm included! they should not exceed your
recommended daily allowance...]
Well, let's look at the examples on the gnu.org website.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
--> What to do if you see a possible GPL violation
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-violation.html
----quote----
Does the distribution contain a copy of the License?
Does it clearly state which software is covered by the License? Does
it say anything misleading, perhaps giving the impression that
something is covered by the License when in fact it is not?
Is source code included in the distribution?
Is a written offer for source code included with a distribution of
just binaries?
Is the available source code complete, or is it designed to for
linking in other non-free modules?
If there seems to be a real violation, the next thing you need to do is
record the details carefully:
the precise name of the product
the name of the person or organization distributing it
email addresses, postal addresses and phone numbers for how to
contact the distributor(s)
the exact name of the package whose license is violated
how the license was violated:
Is the copyright notice of the copyright holder included?
Is the source code completely missing?
Does the written offer for source, if given, only give a
website and/or FTP site where to download the source?
Is there a copy of the license included in the distribution?
Is some of the source available, but not all? If so, what
parts are missing?
----endquote----
So, are we in violation?
- In our case, the 'distribution' contains the license (base files).
- The software (binaries) state what license they are under. (Right?)
- The sources are included in the distribution. Or are they? If you define
'distribution == Debian GNU/Linux' then they are on the CDs and provided
with the binaries and the license is included. If you define 'distribution
== package' then using 'apt-get install <package>' is violating the GPL
because the package does is not distributed with source (or the license.
IMO one definition makes sense, the other is ridiculous.
- Is a written offer for source code included with distribution of just
binaries? I'm tempted to file a bug against apt to ensure that it prints
that 'apt-get source <package> _must_ be run to ensure GPL compliance!' for
every package installed ... :)
- Is the source complete? Yup.
So to me it seems that the violation or non violation of the GPL hinges on
the definition of distribution. If you take 'dist == package' then Jason's
argument of copying ls applies: you're copying binary without source and not
saying where the source can be obtained. Not even ls --help and ls
--version tell you that. (Let's rewrite ftp clients to detect a GNU product
and automatically send the license too...)
So, do you want to take this case to extremes, you get ridiculous really
quick. In the case of debs, it might be prudent to have each deb contain
the license and place it in the same spot in the filesystem, so you have it
once and it doesn't get removed until no more files under GPL are on the
system. This gets closer to the letter of the law and more than fulfills
the spirit of it. (and 10M of GPL per system are not necessary :)
In the second part of the questions above, we have again the question of
'what is a dist' and the fact that we only give web and ftp pointers to
source to anyone installing over the net. Again, this seems to imply that
apt should deliver the source to any binary it sends over the ether. (I can
see users happily upgrading a system and getting X and kernel sources etc...
:)
So the question is: do we take the realistic definition and resolution
(ensuring that a copy of the GPL is available on our dist and (possibly)
that each binary installs it in the same place) or do we get blatantly
ridiculous and force 100% literal compliance with no end in sight of
modifying all automated tools to ensure that:
- every binary is shipped with source and license and that the license is
included in the beginning of archives and transfers (if not an aborted
transfer would cause the Internet (invented by Al Gore) to be in violation
of the GPL by not providing the license...)
- the source must be downloaded before binaries to ensure the user has them
Well, I hope you had as much fun reading this as I had writing it. If
someone who knows the GPL well wants to annotate this with sections and
verses, please do: it'll be a good 'how not to interpret the GPL for your
own good' doc :)
Nils.
Reply to: