Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:12:10PM -0600, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote:
> So... we're caught on a technicality. We're supposedly the "most" free
> of Linux distributions out there. We're violating the GPL, one of the
> most popular licenses for our own packages.
It has not been established that we *are* violating the GPL. It has
been asserted, but there are some dubious portions of the claim.
A Debian package really consists of four (sometimes three) parts:
.deb, .orig.tar.gz, .dsc, and (optionally) .diff.gz. The question
really is: how many of those parts need to include a copy of the GPL.
Definitely the .orig.tar.gz -- I have gone out of my way to get a copy
included when upstream didn't realize that they had to have it there
in order for me to legally redistribute the sources. But what about
the others? If the .deb needs to have one, why doesn't the .diff.gz,
which is surely also GPL'd? And what exactly *is* the license of a
.dsc file? Is it legal for someone to distribute a .dsc by itself?
The fact is that we *do* offer everything we're required to offer.
(Whether or not we combine them in the right way is a separate issue.)
We NEVER provide GPL'd .debs without providing the source, and the
source includes the GPL, so we're obviously providing that as well.
And if someone retrieves the .deb without retrieving the .orig.tar.gz,
well, the final paragraph of section three of the GPL specifically
states that that's not our problem.
If we hid the source and made people beg for copies, that would be
completely different, but we don't. That would clearly not count as
giving the GPL with the binary. What we do, though, could (arguably)
be called providing the GPL (along with the source) along with the
binary.
If I were to unpack some GPL'd sources somewhere in a web-accessible
directory, then run make, would I be in violation of the GPL because
people could download the binary without being *forced* to download a
copy of the GPL at the same time? What if I'm running NFS, and happen
to be building on an exportable directory?
Heck, I just duplicated Manoj's feat of downloading the 'ls' binary
from the FSF's own site at ftp.gnu.org, and I can't help but notice
that not only does the binary not contain the GPL (I ran strings to
check), but there isn't even a copy of the GPL in that directory at
all! I downloaded it and RAN it, and was given no indication at all
of what my rights were! The only evidence I have that I didn't just
break the law is the fact that "./ls --help" prints "Report bugs to
fileutils-bugs@gnu.ai.mit.edu". Which requires some inference on my
part....
And I *definitely* do not see how it is possible to claim that we need
to have the GPL in the .deb without also claiming that we need it in
the .diff.gz as well, and possibly the .dsc. Anyone want to take a
shot at justifying that? I mean, someone *could* download a diff file
simply because they're interested in the code in that diff, and, gee,
gosh, they wouldn't know what their rights were! See what a can of
worms this starts to open? What about files that have been split
(with split(1))?
I think the problem is really in thinking that a .deb is a complete
package, rather than considering the complete package to be all four
files, including the source, which includes the GPL.
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
| this .signature file.
Reply to: