Re: ubuntu licence

On Sat, 2008-11-22 at 07:58 +0200, Oguz Yarimtepe wrote:
But isn't it compatible with the GPL also to say the address of the
packages on Internet?

No, not if you distribute commercially. From the GPL v2 (just because I
am not really familiar yet with GPLv3):

"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.)"

Note how c) is only allowed for non-commercial distribution. Commercial
distribution requires either a) or b) - either include the source right
away or include a written offer to provide it.

There were quite a few extended discussion about this in the past, e.g.,
whether Linux Mint (an Ubuntu offshoot) can point to Ubuntu's sources or
has to provide its own.

If you are unclear about the legal aspects wrt to the GPL, I'd suggest
to contact the FSF Compliance lab [1] and, as said earlier, you should
contact Canonical in any case [2]

[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/index_html
[2] http://www.ubuntu.com/partners


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Relevant Pages

  • Re: freebox possible GPL violation
    ... > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable ... > source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections ... > cost of physically performing source distribution, ... that LinkSys is selling but on their website. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: 64-bit Linux pricing - yeepers!
    ... >]call grep, my program doesn't contain grep, so I can license it however ... >]specifically reference the GPL where you think it supports your claim. ... if I take source code from GPL'd program A and use ... uClibc C library, and busybox, and call that a distribution. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Linux Advocates Fear Solaris 10.
    ... >> you should add a note pointing to the Knoppix site, ... but that's not what section 3 of the GPL says. ... source code distributed with the binaries, ... useful distribution, but it's playing fast ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: GUI With Ruby
    ... with source code archives and redundant backups for a period of no less ... Let me point out a case where the GPL did some good. ... only that such a distribution tell the recipient where the ... The argument against following the GPL license terms seems to me to be ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: (was) GUI With Ruby =>OT FSF and GPL
    ... The GPL was crafted so ... long as they accept and execute the terms of the license. ... Here's the section which requires source code ... cost of physically performing source distribution, ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)