Add restrictions to GPL - lose right to distribute
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dyfet Dec 12, 2013 9:15 AM EDT |
I had noticed that passage in passing about them demanding some kind of license in Clem's original response in the original story about the false claims made by a Canonical employee. I had pointed this out at the time, and had wondered about it too. I am glad finally this is coming to light and becoming more clear. It is very possible to add a cost or to otherwise "sell" GNU GPL licensed software, in binary form, so long as the original license conditions are met and the source is also made available. Where this breaks down is when they assert the idea of "licensing" binaries with additional "restrictions", such as adding terms, as suggested here, that denies the right of Mint and end users, per his comment in the distrowatch article "The licensing aims at restricting what Mint can and cannot do..." This I think would clearly breach the GNU GPL as it denies full right of conveyance and use by adding additional restrictions. Indeed if Canonical did choose to do this, I would contact a lawyer and initiate action to seek their termination of right to redistribute all packages of mine that they do currently redistribute, per the GNU GPL allows me to do as copyright holder. Under such conditions I would encourage other GNU GPL copyright holders to do the same. |
| jdixon Dec 12, 2013 10:51 AM EDT |
I know Celm has been looking at the option of basing Mint on Debian instead of Ubuntu. I think this makes it clear that it's time to start preparing to do so. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 12, 2013 1:46 PM EDT |
> I think this makes it clear that it's time to start preparing to do so. Amen~! |
| mbaehrlxer Dec 12, 2013 2:29 PM EDT |
what are the restrictions? is this any different then what redhat is doing with their binaries? afaik centos is build from redhat source, so not touching redhats binaries. see http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/64580 " if you know someone who has Red Hat binaries, they can redistribute them to you for free. Red Hat simply chooses not to distribute binaries for no cost." consequently, could canonical choose to charge mint for their binaries. the difference would be of course that redhat is charging everyone, and canonical would not do that, so it is not as clear-cut as redhats situation. and of course in difference to red hat it will be much more likely to find someone willing to redistribute ubuntu binaries for free. greetings, eMBee. |
| flufferbeer Dec 12, 2013 3:04 PM EDT |
@dyfet, >> I had noticed that passage in passing about them demanding some kind of license in Clem's original response in the original story about the false claims made by a Canonical employee. I had pointed this out at the time, and had wondered about it too. I am glad finally this is coming to light and becoming more clear. Yes, seems to me also that Canonical is taking its script out of y'old M$'s playbook as far as ramping up the FUD (= Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), this time dircted against good old Linux Mint. Expect major passive-aggressive PR spin from the parent company to follow, as well as a bunch of patronizing legalspeak from CanCo's suits.....BOOOObuntu!!! >:( 2c |
| theboomboomcars Dec 12, 2013 3:21 PM EDT |
In the original distrowatch article it says:
Quoting:When asked if Canonical was hoping to collect a fee for using their binary packages, Clem responded, "Money isn't a primary concern. Although the original fee was in the hundreds of thousands pounds, it was easily reduced to a single digit figure. The licensing aims at restricting what Mint can and cannot do, mostly in relation to the OEM market, to prevent Mint from competing with Canonical in front of the same commercial partners."http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20131209#qa Here Clem says that they were able to negotiate the cost of using the repositories to almost nothing, the main thing Canonical is wanting is to have Linux Mint not to compete with them with the same oems. I think that Canonical is working this as not limiting the distribution of the binaries but the access to the repository. If there are mirrors available for the ubuntu repositories, Clem can get around this by using a non-Canonical mirror. It seems that Canonical is trying something new to reduce competition from the derivative distributions. |
| CFWhitman Dec 12, 2013 3:23 PM EDT |
The only issue with basing on Debian is that packages in Stable are older than Ubuntu, and packages in Testing and Unstable are not guaranteed not to cause breakage. To establish a new base point for your distribution, like Ubuntu does, is a significant amount of work. Of course, Debian Stable works very well as a desktop, so there is no big reason you need newer packages. I have my netbook running Crunchbang 64 bit, based on Debian Stable, and an old laptop I use to cross compile software for my OpenPandora running Debian Stable 32 bit. I don't generally feel restricted running those machines, at least not by the software :-). |
| jdixon Dec 12, 2013 3:40 PM EDT |
> To establish a new base point for your distribution, like Ubuntu does, is a significant amount of work. Yes. But at a certain point, it looks like it's going to be necessary. I don't think Clem can afford to rely on Ubuntu. |
| DrGeoffrey Dec 12, 2013 7:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:The only issue with basing on Debian is that packages in Stable are older than Ubuntu, and packages in Testing and Unstable are not guaranteed not to cause breakage. What good are guarantees? But, beside that question, have you looked at SolydXK? My family has been using it for several months now, with its monthly semi-rolling release schedule, and our experience indicates it is much more stable than Linux Mint with its Ubuntu base ever was. The stability of debian Testing is not the issue. At least, not from the perspective of the 3 laptops in my household. Hence, while I have great respect for Clem and what he and his team have accomplished, this time they blew it. |
| BernardSwiss Dec 12, 2013 7:50 PM EDT |
I can't say that I find Ubuntu to be particularly stable. For example, just last night I had the desktop Ubuntu box do the whole "forgetting how to show window borders, buttons, legible panel icons/fonts, and correct theme" routine, again (and I've had to issue the 'gtk-window-decorator --replace' incantation often enough that I don't even have to look it up, anymore). And that particular problem has surfaced sporadically in both 10.04 'Lucid' LTS and 12.04 'Precise' LTS; that's 2 (two) LTS versions in a row, which are supposedly the stable, reliable, 'Long Term Support' versions. (I hear the Kubuntu and Xubuntu re-spins are more reliable, but don't have enough experience with them to say -- but if it's true, that says a lot). |
| CFWhitman Dec 13, 2013 10:34 AM EDT |
Well, I've never really used Ubuntu, so I can't say how stable it seems. I've only used Xubuntu, Ubuntu Studio (I used it with Xfce even before it switched to Xfce), and Lubuntu. They seem pretty stable most of the time. Really, though, like I said, Debian Stable is fine most of the time. The only real problem with Debian occurs when there is quick improvement with something, like recent improvements to the way Radeon cards work. Then you can get left behind for a significant time period. You can take steps to run a newer kernel and newer X, but that's a lot more trouble than running a more up to date distribution (though even then you end up a little behind unless you go to a bleeding edge rolling release). |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 13, 2013 11:01 AM EDT |
Debian Testing gets very, very unstable after a "stable" release, as all the pent-up changes are dumped into it. Running Unstable is actually more reliable, except when there is a MAJOR change, such as Xfree86 to xorg, libc5 to libc6, and the like. I continually updated desktops and servers from Debian Unstable for years without problems. It's been a few years since such upheavals. Who knows, it may not get that "unstable" again for a long time. The only truly stable release is the one that does not change. The only truly stable "desktop" is the one you do not update. Life is a grand adventure. Live it! ...and keep good backups. |
| Steven_Rosenber Dec 13, 2013 3:20 PM EDT |
Speaking as a huge Debian fan, I still want to caution that you can't equate stability with stuff actually working. If your hardware is not supported (i.e. too new), or if whatever application you rely on was frozen at an inopportune time in its own particular development cycle, a "stable" build of an OS could work against you. The thing about Debian Stable is that if it's working for you, it's sure as hell not going to break during the release's support period. But if something is broken, unfortunately it'll stay broken. So whatever system you end up running, it pays to test, test, test on the hardware and for the desired task(s) before committing to a given release of a given distro. Sometimes it's just easier to use something else. I've done this many times in the past, sometimes picking Debian, other times Fedora (what I'm running now on my desktop), other times Xubuntu, Lubuntu or ... |
| CFWhitman Dec 13, 2013 3:21 PM EDT |
I've run LMDE (based on Debian Testing) and Sidux/Aptosid (based on Debian Unstable) in the past. Aptosid seemed at least as stable as LMDE really (I ran Aptosid a lot longer). The prospect of moving away from an Ubuntu based distribution doesn't frighten me. However, there is a certain amount of convenience provided by the fact that Ubuntu packages for a lot of extra software are readily available, especially for other people I introduce to Linux (the ones who aren't going to compile software or convert packages). When I point out a problem with a certain distribution, it's just to give the cons as well as the pros. I don't mean to imply that any of these distributions are unsatisfactory. There are simply strengths and weaknesses to each approach. That's the way it is with everything. I was just pointing out the issues that Clem has to deal with in considering what he may do with Mint in the future. There are pros and cons to all of his options. He could go with a Debian Stable based distribution and be perceived by some as being behind the times. Going directly to Debian Testing or Unstable is more work than basing off Ubuntu. As flaky as Ubuntu can be, I've never had Xubuntu, for example, break in the way I've seen LMDE or Sid based distributions break in the past. Really he has many options, but they all have their upsides and downsides, just like what he's doing now. As far as guarantees go: We're not talking about literal guarantees here, just an assurance of thorough testing. However, in my experience with Debian Stable, and Slackware for that matter, guarantees seem to be very, very good. |
| DrGeoffrey Dec 14, 2013 1:25 PM EDT |
Ahhh, yes. Blind spots. 1) I avoid all non-intel display cards. 2) I obviously do not have all the information that Clem has at his disposal (which may explain why I maintain a Mint partition, even though it is rarely used). 3) My experience with SolydXK is largely limited to the period when Debian Testing has seen relatively few changes. In any event, Cinnamon has been developing quite nicely, or so I read. Perhaps it is time to install the latest Mint, with Cinnamon, to see how it fairs. Thanks to several for reminding me to not judge too quickly. A personal preference is, after all, a Personal preference. |
| cmost Dec 15, 2013 6:56 PM EDT |
Linux Mint already has a Debian base in the form of Linux Mint Debian Edition (LMDE). This is actually a very nice distribution that's been "mintified" with up-to-date packages and all the Minty goodness that makes it nearly indistinguishable in form or function from its Ubuntu based cousin. The way the Mint team achieves stability is by isolating Debian packages in its own repositories and then updating LMDE incrementally with Update Packs (currently they're up to Update Pack 7.) This way, Mint is able to shield its users from breakage due to misbehaving packages in Debian Testing. Of course this makes LMDE more of a semi-rolling distribution. My only complaint with LMDE is that clearly the Ubuntu based version of Linux Mint is the primary focus of the team with LMDE being relegated to a secondary effort. In short, all the pieces are already in place for Linux Mint to switch to Debian as its base. If the Mint team decides to go that route and focuses all its efforts there then I anticipate that LMDE will become the premier Debian distribution against which all others are measured. |
| jdixon Dec 15, 2013 7:51 PM EDT |
> Linux Mint already has a Debian base in the form of Linux Mint Debian Edition (LMDE). Unfortunately, the current version only comes in Mate and Cinnamon flavors, not XFCE. I realize that's fairly easy to fix, but... |
| cmost Dec 15, 2013 8:10 PM EDT |
@ jdixon Ironically, once upon a time the XFCE version of Linux Mint was also based on Debian instead of Ubuntu (I can't recall the reason why). I would think that if Mint switches to Debian as it's base, then all the usual flavors (e.g., XFCE, LMDE, KDE, etc.) will also appear as official variants. In the meantime, you can grab your unofficial XFCE spin of LMDE here: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=122592 Or, you can grab the most excellent Debian based XFCE distribution there is in SolydX here: http://solydxk.com/homeedition/solydx/ Enjoy! |
| DrGeoffrey Dec 15, 2013 8:57 PM EDT |
And for those who like a bit more glitz with their distribution, you can get the KDE version of SolydXK here: http://solydxk.com/homeedition/solydk/ On a related discussion, I carried through with my test of the latest edition of Mint/cinnamon, and it is an impressive improvement. Alas, I quickly found it forgetting my keyboard shortcuts, so while it is better, it's not as capable as KDE. Still, it is coming along nicely, and worthy of a periodic peek. And for those who think KDE is not stable, frequently this semester I found myself with 15+ windows of 5+ applications open across 12 desktops... with no noticeable slow down or increase in instability. Four times this semester I rebooted after about a month only because SolydXK updated with a new kernel. Still, my experience does not speak to everyone's differences in hardware. And particularly those who work with nvidia or AMD display cards would be best advised (IMHO) to carefully consider whether they want a rolling release. |
| number6x Dec 16, 2013 12:03 AM EDT |
I'm sorry but the title of the thread has been bugging me all week... Lose Lose Lose Lose The rights wouldn't be loosened up, they would be lost. Sorry. |
| tuxchick Dec 16, 2013 2:09 AM EDT |
Thank you number6x. Thank you Thank you Thank you.Quoting: You lose your job when you get fired for making silly mistakes. You don't loose your job unless you release it from a cage. http://www.loseloose.com/ |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 16, 2013 9:40 AM EDT |
Ah, English. I blame the govt public schools. But then, I blame everything on the govt public schools. |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2013 10:13 AM EDT |
> But then, I blame everything on the govt public schools. Well, when you have a 90% chance of being correct.... :) |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2013 10:14 AM EDT |
> You don't loose your job unless you release it from a cage. http://www.loseloose.com/ Lion... Here zookeeper, here zookeeper. |
| CFWhitman Dec 16, 2013 11:27 AM EDT |
Sounds like they've changed the update process for LMDE since the last time I've used it (of course, when I used it Xfce was the only desktop choice). It seemed to be pretty much completely rolling back then. It sounds like their new approach isn't too different from that of SolydXK. They both use update snapshots to freeze updates at certain points that won't be broken. I've been thinking of trying SolydX on some hardware or other to evaluate it. I doubt I'm going to check out LMDE again right away since they don't do an Xfce default version anymore. I like to have a polished default to fall back on, even if I decide to run some other window manager or desktop. |
| caitlyn Dec 18, 2013 1:36 PM EDT |
While I agree that what Canonical is doing is not what Red Hat is doing, I don't believe it breaches the GPL in any way, shape or form. The GPL, and the Open Source definition in general, talk about free access to source code, not binaries. AFAICT, Canonical is free to charge whatever they want for binaries or repository access just as Red Hat is free to restrict access to them. What Canonical cannot do is prevent someone from taking their sources, compiling them, and distributing their own binaries much as CentOS does with Red Hat sources. Again, AFAICT, Canonical doesn't restrict anyone from doing this. It's fair to debate the impact on downstream distros (not just Mint) and it's fair to also debate what this does to Ubuntu's relationship to an increasingly angry community. I know that if I was building a distro based on Ubuntu I would be looking at migrating to Debian very seriously. |
| flufferbeer Dec 19, 2013 2:22 PM EDT |
@catilyn, >> It's fair to debate the impact on downstream distros (not just Mint) and it's fair to also debate what this does to Ubuntu's relationship to an increasingly angry community. I know that if I was building a distro based on Ubuntu I would be looking at migrating to Debian very seriously. Although I wouldn't be so dismissive of sentiments such as Nixie Pixel's at her awesome http://youtu.be/KOF05L1tZaE youtube vid. Her words FOR Mint come in the 1rst third of the vid, and those AGAINST CanUbucomical's increasing "dark side" come ~1.5min after the funny RMS minivid and just before her ending pitch for ting. 2 more c's |
| skelband Dec 19, 2013 5:19 PM EDT |
It's also worth reflecting that the issues between source and binary is entirely different.
RMS's complaints are to do with control and freedom. Having access to source is what satisfies that need. Access to binaries, however, is about cost, delivery and convenience. One could view the generation and supply of binaries a service since they can be easily produced from the source by users. Hosting of source is a cost that businesses have to cover in order to facilitate the freedoms required of free source and is the price they pay for the ability to use and modify them. That seems a fair thing to ask. However, I don't see the same situation for compiled binaries. |
| azerthoth Dec 22, 2013 1:52 AM EDT |
No need for misquoted religion skelband. there is no requirement for free source or a requirement to 'host'. Only to provide at request with compensation, and no restrictions on redistribution. |
| mbaehrlxer Dec 22, 2013 8:49 AM EDT |
the requirement is to provide the source for a reasonable fee to cover cost of the media, shipping and handling, which, given internet downloads can be equated to being free. at least, charging extra for the source on an internet download would probably not be acceptable (except maybe for a micropayment to cover for the bandwidth cost.) it doesn't look to me like skelband is misquoting anything here especially considering that hosting the source for free download is easier and cheaper than handling fulfillment via shipped media. greetings, eMBee. |
| vainrveenr Dec 22, 2013 12:55 PM EDT |
As most LXer readers likely realize, the Free Software Foundation has a GPL webpage http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL. The FSF's GPL webpage lists several further resources for its related software licenses, e.g., * Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU licenses * How to use GNU licenses for your own software * What to do if you see a violation of a GNU license * List of Free Software Licenses With this as a background: Quoting:It's also worth reflecting that the issues between source and binary is entirely different. RMS's complaints are to do with control and freedom. Having access to source is what satisfies that need. One may then ask, Just what are RMS's complaints having to do with control and freedom ?? Among other fine online resources that directly address this question is the 'Quick Guide to GPLv3' link , found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html: Quoting:The Foundations of the GPL Then further down this page: Quoting:* Discriminatory patent deals: Microsoft has recently started telling people that they will not sue free software users for patent infringement—as long as you get the software from a vendor that's paying Microsoft for the privilege. Ultimately, Microsoft is trying to collect royalties for the use of free software, which interferes with users' freedom. No company should be able to do this. Note that 1) this specifically applies to GPL v3, and 2) MIcrosoft has been one of the principle "villains" of the FSF in the past. Perhaps it is well-worth referencing and reviewing these above-quoted "sources" from the FSF, in light of any restrictions or runarounds to the GPL that Canonical Ltd would attempt to enact ?? |
| jdixon Dec 22, 2013 4:31 PM EDT |
> However, I don't see the same situation for compiled binaries. Agreed. However (you knew that was coming, right?), if the repositories are Canonical's way of of complying with the source code distribution requirement, they can't lock either the Mint developers or the Mint users out of their repositories, or charge them more than a nominal fee for access. They can lock them out of the binaries, but not the source code. Has Canonical set up alternative arrangements for meeting the source code requirement? |
| skelband Dec 23, 2013 1:18 PM EDT |
> No need for misquoted religion skelband. there is no requirement for free source or a requirement to 'host'. Sorry, where did I say that exactly? Here is what I actually said: "It's also worth reflecting that the issues between source and binary is entirely different. RMS's complaints are to do with control and freedom. Having access to source is what satisfies that need." In other words you may not withhold source or your changes if you distribute the binaries. There is no objection to selling free and open software source *or* binary. But the source *must* be available. That companies see a cost problem in providing free services for binary downloading to everyone is not at odds with the ideal of free (as in freedom) software. |
| azerthoth Dec 24, 2013 4:31 AM EDT |
The source must be available, but not without a cost, that requirement does not exist. Or go look at the cgarges you would have to pay for his documentation of said code. It is entirely reasonable to charge 200s or thousands of dollars for initial access, proven reasonable as they are the acts of the man himself. |
| mbaehrlxer Dec 24, 2013 5:14 AM EDT |
it is reasonable to charge 200s or thousands of dollars for access to the binaries, as redhat for example is doing. it is not reasonable to charge that much for the source on top of the binaries. greetings, eMBee. |
| gus3 Dec 24, 2013 11:20 AM EDT |
One extra nit to pick: The source must be machine-readable (i.e. not hardcopy only, not in a sound recording of binary ones and zeroes spoken in Navajo, etc.). |
| mbaehrlxer Dec 24, 2013 11:32 AM EDT |
it also must be human-usable, not obfuscated, but in the form that you normally use to edit it. greetings, eMBee. |
| azerthoth Dec 24, 2013 7:11 PM EDT |
Actually no, there is no defined requirement for that. Punch cards are a perfectly legitimate form of conveyance, given machine readable does not mandate that your machine is equiped to actually read it. |
| mbaehrlxer Dec 25, 2013 5:01 AM EDT |
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html wrote: note, that i didn't say "human-readable" as there may be tools to edit the source which store it in some binary form, like squeak/pharo smalltalk are doing, or the gui parts of NeXTSTEP/OS X apps. greetings, eMBee. |
| azerthoth Dec 25, 2013 11:18 AM EDT |
preferred is a curiuos word, there is a quote from the princess bride that is most fitting here, and a question, prefered by whom? You may see it as implied, implied though levies no requirement. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!