Thanks for shutting out someone trying to help...someone trying to give you direction!
Thought you asked for this!
Parts from a thread about having the source code (the programming language version of the package, application, library, kernel, etc.) which I found at:
“There's a pretty huge reason to want the source code for everything -- if you plan on redistributing Ubuntu. The GPL requires you to provide access to the full corresponding source code when you distribute binaries.
There's a reason the GPL doesn't allow us to just point to a repository and say "just get the code from there if you ever need it."
You can't rely on it being there for 3 years if you don't control it. More importantly, it's hardly fair to ask someone to figure out which 1200 packages you gave them on the CD, when the repository has 20,000 packages to choose from...
The entire point of the GPL and Free Software is lost if people don't fulfill their obligations to distribute the full corresponding source code along with the binaries. While it might be easy to assume that Canonical will still exist in 3 years (I'm quite sure they will), the same cannot be said for smaller projects. And when people get into the habit on relying on the upstream vendor to provide the source, rather than provide it themselves like they are supposed to, big problems can occur quickly.”
And from FSF.org on source code.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms.
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively block your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Rules that if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also can be acceptable too, on the same condition. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish your version at all.) Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use are also acceptable. It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications.
(If Ubuntu/Canonical ask for that copy source code containing your modifications tomorrow, Justin, do you have it?)
So, Justin, this means that you must provide access to the source code. If someone is on dial-up and they would rather have you send a dvd with the source code on it (whether you charge them for this service is up to you)...you do have to provide the source! It is a must, mentioned in two of the four freedoms. You can't depend on Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS or LinuxMint or whatever distro you have based your modifications upon to always be around or available. (Especially if you are using an different version of a package than is in their current repository! Will you know where to find it to point the user to it?)
And finally at FSF.org:
“The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the “user's” purpose that matters, not the “developer's: purpose...”
This means that if you mean to distribute, it doesn't matter how much it costs you, or how much time it will take, or how much disk space, or that you will have to provide a server...that is part of the responsibility, Justin. Freedom means, responsibility to the user, is the focus.
It isn't so simple as putting up a website and having the world come to your “door,” and you handing out copies....it takes responsibility, Justin. Responsibility to the user...
God Bless
Doug
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks for shutting out someone trying to help...someone trying to give you direction!
Thought you asked for this!
Parts from a thread about having the source code (the programming language version of the package, application, library, kernel, etc.) which I found at:
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-14756.html
“There's a pretty huge reason to want the source code for everything -- if you plan on redistributing Ubuntu. The GPL requires you to provide access to the full corresponding source code when you distribute binaries.
There's a reason the GPL doesn't allow us to just point to a repository and say "just get the code from there if you ever need it."
You can't rely on it being there for 3 years if you don't control it. More importantly, it's hardly fair to ask someone to figure out which 1200 packages you gave them on the CD, when the repository has 20,000 packages to choose from...
The entire point of the GPL and Free Software is lost if people don't fulfill their obligations to distribute the full corresponding source code along with the binaries. While it might be easy to assume that Canonical will still exist in 3 years (I'm quite sure they will), the same cannot be said for smaller projects. And when people get into the habit on relying on the upstream vendor to provide the source, rather than provide it themselves like they are supposed to, big problems can occur quickly.”
And from FSF.org on source code.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms.
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively block your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Rules that if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also can be acceptable too, on the same condition. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish your version at all.) Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use are also acceptable. It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications.
(If Ubuntu/Canonical ask for that copy source code containing your modifications tomorrow, Justin, do you have it?)
So, Justin, this means that you must provide access to the source code. If someone is on dial-up and they would rather have you send a dvd with the source code on it (whether you charge them for this service is up to you)...you do have to provide the source! It is a must, mentioned in two of the four freedoms. You can't depend on Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS or LinuxMint or whatever distro you have based your modifications upon to always be around or available. (Especially if you are using an different version of a package than is in their current repository! Will you know where to find it to point the user to it?)
And finally at FSF.org:
“The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the “user's” purpose that matters, not the “developer's: purpose...”
This means that if you mean to distribute, it doesn't matter how much it costs you, or how much time it will take, or how much disk space, or that you will have to provide a server...that is part of the responsibility, Justin. Freedom means, responsibility to the user, is the focus.
It isn't so simple as putting up a website and having the world come to your “door,” and you handing out copies....it takes responsibility, Justin. Responsibility to the user...
God Bless
Doug
Sorry, Justin, I blamed you for locking that thread...but it may have been a mod at tuxmachines.org...I am trying to find out.
God Bless
Doug
Your right. I managed to e-mail the only moderator / administrator and she has perminatly blocked me from the site and my blog.
I really didn't mean to post something so controversial. I just wanted to inspire people that are persecuted in the GNU/Linux community.
I didn't shut anyone out. The site administrator had enough of the flame war and removed everyone's access to it including mine.