On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:45:35PM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> >There haven't been any releases based on the new build system.
> >The old system didn't provide a bearable means to distribute all
> >sources. OZ 3.3.5 and OZ 3.3.6-pre1 have been done with the old system.
> >You can moan about that but you can't change it.
> >If this is a legal offense, then we are glad to remove all OpenZaurus
> >releases from our servers. They're unsupported und unmaintained anyway.
> I was under the impression that you were required to distibute your
> modifications to the source. These are happilly kept in bitkeeper for
> everyone to obtain. Therefore anyone can re-create any of the releases so
> whats the problem?
It doesn't follow the rules as set forward by the original copyright owners.
> This whole things seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup, I don't see
> debian and redhat storing sources for arcane releases.
That's because Debian and Redhat accompany their releases with the source code
for at least the sources covered under the GPL, so that they fully comply with
the GPL. Here is the relevant portion 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:
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.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
IMHO, the only way to really comply with the GPL is to distribute the source at
the time you distribute the binaries. Otherwise 3b and 3c can present
pitfalls in the future as Cisco/Linksys for instance have found out.
Now, I'm willing to cut the OZ developers some slack, but it sounds like other
people are getting antsy. Note, even if you removed the OZ distributions now,
I suspect you would still be bound to make the sources available as specified
by the GPL for any past distributions.