Heads up, slight tree path change

[Douglas McClendon]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:26:11 -0500
> Douglas McClendon <dmc.fedora at filteredperception.org> wrote:
> 
>> I wasn't really concerned with the issue of source matching binaries
>> on a fedora derivative that _differ_ from the binaries that are in
>> fedora proper.  That will no doubt only represent a very small
>> fraction of the derivative distribution.  What I am worried about is
>> whether there is any legal requirement for the deriver, to host the
>> same sources that fedora is already hosting.  I believe that
>> somewhere in the thread above, is the suggestion that a derivative
>> distro, if not wanting to be obliged to host *all* the source rpms,
>> must get some sort of explicit written promise from the upstream
>> distro, that the upstream distro will host the source rpms for X
>> amount of time (where X==3years?).
> 
> GPL wants "No less than 3 years".
> 
>> The whole reason the slashdot thread was interesting, is because it
>> is rather strange to begin with, since one would assume that the
>> upstream provider already has the legal obligation.  I suspect the
>> issue was to prevent a scenario where an upstream provider goes
>> belly-up/disappears, and then the downstream deriver that didn't
>> bother to mirror a copy, cannot legally satisfy their own obligations
>> under the GPL.
>>
>> IANAL, so I may be completely butchering the issue.
> 
> There are multiple ways to distribute the binaries (and source) under
> the GPL. You either deliver it at the same time as you deliver the
> binaries:
> 
> 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.)
> 
> Right now, Fedora does A.  That means that when we make the binary go
> away, we can make the source go away too.  Otherwise we'd be on the
> hook to keep hosting the sources to every binary we release for no less
> than 3 years time.
> 
> What you're asking to do is c), include the forwarded promise that
> Fedora made to you.  It's not clear to me how to handle cases where
> it's near the end of year 3 of the original promise, yet you do a "new"
> binary release of your distribution including the notice.  The notice
> is only good for say another year, do you have to some how extend that
> to 3 years?

That was a truly excellent reply (very clear).

Because of your first reply, and how it is OK to have a derivative 
distro pointing at fedora yum repos by default, this is not such a big 
deal.  Especially as I am personally only concerned with a livecd style 
derivative distro.  Maintaining my own hosted set of just the src rpms 
that match what I put on a livecd, is not so bad.  The real worry was if 
I couldn't leech off of fedora yum repos, and if I had to go and 
maintain my own copy of Everything.

Thanks,

-dmc