[Fedora-marketing-list] Derivate distributions and GPL
Patrick W. Barnes
nman64 at n-man.com
Sun Jul 16 10:03:26 UTC 2006
On Sunday 16 July 2006 04:06, Rahul <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> "The article revealed that many distributions' maintainers were
> erroneously assuming that they did not need to provide source
> repositories for packages they did not modify, so long as the original
> upstream distribution did provide the source code. This responsibility
> is by no means new, but seems to have been widely overlooked. David
> Turner, GPL compliance officer at the Free Software Foundation,
> suggested that these distros might come into compliance by making some
> arrangement with the upstream supplier.
>
> Turner's suggestion was rejected by Max Spevack, Fedora Board chair,
> partly because of the possible expense, but chiefly because it might
> encourage forking and leave the upstream distribution open to legal
> liability for the downstream one."
>
> http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/07/07/2044245&from=rss
>
> Not sure how a agreement with upstream would encourage forking. Max, can
> you expand on that?
>
> Needless to say, a better working arrangement with derivative
> distributions is pretty important for Fedora. We have a number of Fedora
> derivatives out there that could be doing interesting modifications that
> we need to look at.
>
There's a significant difference between derivative distributions and
third-party repositories. Most of the projects that use Fedora Core as a
base are third-party repositories. The derivatives are true forks, and are
not something we want to get tied to supporting, even though we certainly
don't mind enabling them.
The Fedora Project's code will remain freely available for the foreseeable
future, but there's no reason for us to take responsibility for providing
that source to keep a downstream distribution GPL compliant. If we enter
into an agreement with downstream distributions, we could end up being
responsible if changes in our code provisions result in those downstream
distributions being in violation of the GPL.
If we do make an open agreement to provide the code for downstream
distributions, it becomes almost as easy to handle a downstream distribution
as to host a third-party repository. Since a third-party repository would be
more restricted than another distribution, lazy packagers that want to
casually modify Fedora Core could end up forking it. Forcing them to
maintain their own code repositories raises the bar to a point where those
packagers would have to make a real commitment before forking.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64 at n-man.com
http://www.n-man.com/
LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64
Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance!
http://rate.affero.net/nman64/
--
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/marketing/attachments/20060716/11c54ec6/attachment.bin
More information about the marketing
mailing list