Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 00:30:10 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports CHANGES UPDATING ports/Mk bsd.port.mk ports/accessibility/linux-atk Makefile pkg-plist ports/archivers/stuffit Makefile ports/astro/linux-setiathome Makefile ports/audio/baudline Makefile ports/audio/linux-arts ... Message-ID: <20041231233010.GA2097@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20041231225221.GA89911@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <200412311824.iBVIOAhM026389@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041231221656.GA53772@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20041231225221.GA89911@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:52:21PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > > - remove RESTRICTED from some GPL licensed ports, even when we only
> > > distribute binaries, we get them from official linux sites, so
> > > anyone can grab them there if he needs to
> >
> > This sound highly dubious to me, and I really don't think it satisfies
> > the requirements of the GNU GPL.
>
> There's been some discussion of this point, and there are differing
> opinions. If you read the FAQ on the gnu website, it discusses this
> case; they themselves say that we're allowed to point to a third party
> site to obtain the source code, and the only problem is if they remove
> it, which puts the burden back onto us. It's highly unlikely that
> every redhat 8.0 mirror will disappear from the internet during the
> period we're [1] obliged to provide access to source code (since those
> mirror sites are also obliged to provide ongoing access to the source
> code under the same terms), but if that happens then we can switch to
> hosting the srpms ourselves.
What their FAQ says about this is:
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from
the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you
make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source
code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source
code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the
same place".
Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens
to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look
there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or
simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then
you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make
a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive
arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source
will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries
available.
I think the part about "make a positive arrangement" is important.
It does not seem to be enough that some other site carries the sources
(even if they seem likely to do it for a long time), you need to make
some kind of agreement with that site to be in compliance with the GPL.
As for "switch to hosting the srpms ourselves", that assumes that you
have already obtained all the relevant srpms before the mirrors
disappear - and if you already have the sources you might as well put
them in some obscure corner of ftp.freebsd.org in the first place and
thus avoid all problems with the GPL.
>
> Kris
>
> [1] The freebsd.org project, which only provides ftp access to the
> bits. CDROM resellers need to make their own arrangements to satisfy
> the GPL here and elsewhere, since at least by the gnu.org
> interpretation of their license they must provide sources "in kind" on
> binary media to customers who bought the binaries on binary media, and
> pointing obnoxious cdrom customers to a redhat mirror site isn't
> enough, i.e. they need to provide the srpms (and all other GPLed
> source code) on CD upon request.
--
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041231233010.GA2097>