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 ...

[Erik Trulsson]

On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 06:24:10PM +0000, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> netchild    2004-12-31 18:24:10 UTC

[snip]

>   Log:
>   Say hello to the linux mega patch, it consolidates our linux bits a
>   little bit and allows to proceed to a more recent linux_base from
>   a stable (read as: the major bugs should be ironed out or identified
>   and most linux ports build just fine) source.
>   
>   It also allows to ship 4.11 with a working linuxolator (the EOLed
>   linux_base is marked forbidden because of a security hole).
>   
>   This is a major update, please read UPDATING (and CHANGES if you
>   develop linux ports).
>   
>   Changes:

[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.

The GNU GPL states (in part):

	  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.)
[...]
	If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
	access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
	access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
	distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
	compelled to copy the source along with the object code.


To my reading this means that if the FreeBSD Project wishes to
distribute some GPL licensed binaries then the FreeBSD Project must
also make available the exact sources from which the binaries where
built. If the distribution of the binaries is by CD-ROM then the
sources also need to be on that CD-ROM (or a written offer as detailed
by the GPL.)
The alternative is of course to not distribute the binaries in
question.

If some other entity not related to the FreeBSD Project does, or does
not, make available the sources in question is completely irrelevant
and in no way relieves the FreeBSD Project of its duty to provide the
sources.


In short: either all ports providing GPL'd binaries needs to get a
RESTRICTED clause added (preventing distribution of the binaries), or
somebody needs to track down all the sources from which the binaries
were built and put the sources somewhere on the FreeBSD FTP site.

Providing just binaries without having the sources at the same place
violates the GNU GPL as far as I can tell.


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