NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/os/linux/8379

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-16 | 8.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!ox-prg!pgr
From: [e-mail] (Partially Grown Rhododendron)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Long reply to (Re: SLS: now available (for testers))
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:23:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Partially Grown Rhododendron)
Lines: 160

This is a long article in reply to Peter MacDonald's postings about SLS.
Please note -- I am speaking for myself, with my understanding of the
meaning of the GPL (which I think is pretty much correct, but I am
happy to be corrected if somebody else knows better).  This shouldn't
be construed as a nasty flame -- it is merely trying to make sure that
GNU is given appropriate treatment under the SLS package.

In <[e-mail]>, Peter MacDonald <pmacdona@sanjuan>
writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>                        (bill davidsen) writes:
> >I'm sorry you consider it bitching, but I /do/ think that the source
> >tree should be included, because the GPL requires that it be made
> >available. That's why I'm not distributing disks myself.
> According to this, everyone who posts a binary, without the full source,
> is guilty.  That includes GCC and X11.

Why X11?  That isn't under the GPL, and *can* be distributed with no
problems in binary-only form.  GCC, however, is a different matter,
as are the GNU utilities.

I think a reminder of the GPL is probably in order...
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
]   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.)
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

This means that there is no problem what-so-ever as long as the binary
distributer is willing to do one of (a), (b), or (c).  You have made
it clear that you are not willing to do (a) -- that is understandable
considering your goals, and I probably agree with you.  (c) does not
apply to you since you received the code in source form.

> Please go back and (re)read my first SLS posting.  In it I clearly
> state that Softlanding will make C source available as per GPL, but that
> they discouraged it.

This would suggest that you are willing to do (b) -- I can't check
because your `first' article has expired on our news system; however,
the reason why I don't sound convinced is because of this assertion:

> You also seem to have erroneously assumed that I have such a source
> tree in my possession.  If so, it is incorrect.  SLS is a composite
> of binaries that were posted (MCC, MJ, X11, and many miscellaneous) plus a
> a pile I compiled.

Well, if you are distributing binaries of GPL'd code, you had better
make sure you *do* have the source tree of them hanging around for the
next 3 years unless you want to break GPL (`hanging around' meaning
just being available to be sent off to people who ask for it).  Sorry,
it's not optional (although Stallman did sort of make an exception to
this for FTP sites -- remember the big fuss about GCC?).  If you can't
cope with the restrictions, distribute SLS without the binaries of the
programs that are under the GPL for which you aren't willing to at least
make the source available.

Note:  since anybody with FTP access can get the distribution for `free,'
and from Stallman's previous postings, my understanding is that you
wouldn't need to keep the source online with binaries on the FTP sites --
you do, however, have to (i) include information *in the distribution* on
how to get the sources (and also the copying policy of the binaries); or,
(ii) for the disk distributed copies, both include the information *and*
be willing to forward, *at cost*, the source code of all GPL'd code.


Now, the actual distrubution you have produced:

[from the GPL, about programs covered by it]
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
]   For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
] gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
] you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
] source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their
] rights.
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Note the last sentence.

Having just untarred the entire of the .taz.Z files in the SLS
distribution, and run `strings' over the (uncompressed) 1.Z and (not
compressed) 2.Z files, I didn't seem to be able to find any reference
to the GPL, the GNU COPYING file, or anything to do with GNU.  This is
in direct contravention of the GPL.

> To be clear, I have not, and will not, volunteer to set up a
> centrally administered source tree for Linux.

I don't think that that was what Bill was suggesting at all.

> Instead, I did something that wasn't all that difficult (collect binaries,
> integrate and write a few scripts), but that can potentially benefit
> a large # of people by saving them the hassle of building their own system.

An admirable aim, but only as long as you don't deprive those same people
of their right to the source code of GPL'd code as given to you by the
author of the code.

> But all of this I said in my first SLS post.  Please go back and read it,
> particularly the goals section.

Since the distribution doesn't seem to include that information, (and the
`original' news article seems to have expired at my site), I can only
guess what it said.  However, you are still infringing upon the GPL since
that information is *not* in the distrubution.

> If you want the source tree so bad, I suggest you either go to 386BSD or
> you do it yourself.  I am a little taken aback, however, at your trying
> to use the GPL to bully me into doing it.

I am a little taken aback that you are apparently willing to blatantly
ignore a copyright that has enabled Linux to grow as fast as it did!
Without the GNU utilities, it is debatable whether Linux would ever have
got to anywhere near the state it is now.  If you think the GPL is being
used to bully you then either state why you think that we are wrong about
you not obeying the GPL, or *DON'T INCLUDE GPL'd CODE!*.

The fact that Linux without the GNU software is of practically no use
without a *lot* of work would mean that your distribution would be rather
a waste of time, wouldn't it?  Getting the source isn't too much of a
problem for people who are on the Net, but it is precisely those people
who aren't on the Net who you are aiming SLS at -- they will tend not
to know about GNU or the GPL, nor will they likely know what rights
they do have to the code that they have taken possesion of *unless*
things like the COPYING file are included.

> I weighed what I could do, that would, in my opinion, benefit the
> Linux community maximally.  I didn't really expect everyone would agree
> with that.

Fine, I don't disagree with your motives; but benefiting the Linux
community at the expense of the GNU writers and community is not on
I'm afraid.

I am only asking that you obey the GPL.  Constructively, this can be done
by including the appropriate copyright notices and information on how to
get the source code *within* the distribution, and making sure that you
can fulfil the obligations to provide source code for the GPL'd code on
request -- well, that's a start, anyweay.  Read the GPL and do as it asks.

phil richards
--
[e-mail] -- programming research group -- oxford -- uk