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

[Erik Trulsson]

On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 03:57:19PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I assume that you are talking about this part, yes?
> > 
> >  >    - 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
> >  >
> > 
> > FWIW, I brought up similar concerns with Kris a few days ago, and it was
> > discussed further in private with myself, him, and Warner.  I'm still
> > very concerned about it and I don't think that a real resolution was
> > reached.  This was something that was going to be brought up in an
> > upcoming concall, but that obviously hasn't happened yet.  It's likely
> > that we need a real legal opinion here, not just idle conjecture.  But
> > yes, this is on the radar and I hope to have a resolution soon.
> 
> I think the conclusion was that we can redistribute the binaries,
> unchanged, without the srpms because we're relying on the people we
> got the rpms from to continue to distribute them.  This falls under
> the clause 3c in the gpl.  However, since we've not had a written
> offer, pursuant to cluase 3b, from the upstream source, I'm not sure
> that we can apply 3c to our situation.  We have an implicit offer, but
> not an explicit one.

It seems fairly clear to me that if you have not had a written offer,
pursuant to clause 3b, then 3c does *not* apply.


> 
> The project would be in compliance if we had the SRPMs on our web/ftp
> server, or if we had an explicit third party agreement.

Agreed.

>  The cdrom
> makers, however, would need to either provide the SRPMs, or make an
> explicit agreement with the project to use the Project's copies of the
> sprms

Agreed.

>, assuming we don't make a section 3b written offer they can pass
> through.

Making a secction 3b written offer seems like a real PITA since that
means you *must* keep the sources around for at least 3 years.

If you provide sources along with binaries you only need to keep the
sources around for as long as you make the binaries available.

>  I'd say we just have a 'source only' cdrom for this, but
> that's just an off the cuff idea.



> 
> This one is grey, but likely legal.

I would say it is grey, but likely *illegal*.

>  The more disturbing one is when
> we have GPL'd software as binary packages.  If we don't also provide
> the distfiles on our site, then we're in bigger trouble becaue that's
> no logner a grey area, but a more explicit violation of the GPL.
> 
> Ideally, the ports infrastructure would grow a setting to allow for
> this to be easily managed.




-- 
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013 at student.uu.se