diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'www/licenserant.html')
| -rwxr-xr-x | www/licenserant.html | 54 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 54 deletions
diff --git a/www/licenserant.html b/www/licenserant.html deleted file mode 100755 index b6af90f3..00000000 --- a/www/licenserant.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,54 +0,0 @@ -<!--#include file="header.html" --> - -<p>The reason for the clarification of section 3 is that -<a href="http://www.linux.com/articles/55285">what the FSF did to Mepis</a> was inexcusable. (Further discussed -in <a href="http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-June/022797.html">this -thread</a>.)</p> - -<p>A small Linux distributor named Mepis (more or less a guy in his garage) -partnered with a big linux distributor called Ubuntu (multi-million dollar -company with offices in more than one country). Mepis put out a press release -quoting Ubuntu's founder about how cool the partnership was, and then Mepis -pointed to Ubuntu's source repository for GPL packages it was using unmodified -Ubuntu versions of. And the FSF went after them.</p> - -<p>As far as we're concerned, Mepis didn't do anything wrong, and the FSF -was a bully. The FSF was wrong when it tried to make an example out of a -company that was acting in good faith.</p> - -<p>To make sure the FSF doesn't pick on anyone else against our wishes, we're -clarifying that if you didn't modify the source code, and the binaries you're -distributing can be entirely regenerated from a public upstream source, -pointing to that upstream source in good faith is good enough for us. As -long as the upstream source doesn't object to the extra bandwidth, -and the correct source code stays available at that location you specify -for the duration of your responsiblity to redistribute source, life is good.</p> - -<p>There are a few common sense caveats. This doesn't mean it's fair for a -Fortune 500 company to point millions of people at somebody's home DSL line -(certainly not without asking first). And if the source that's available there -is not the complete corresponding source to the binaries you distributed, then -obviously you haven't fulfilled your obligations by pointing to some _other_ -source. (If you modified it, we want the patch, and claiming you didn't -modify it when you actually did would be fraud.) And if the code stops being -available at that location, you're not off the hook and have to find a new -location or put up your own mirror.</p> - -<p>So this is not a "get out of jail free" card: It's still your responsibility -to make the complete corresponding source available. We're just saying you can -reasonably delegate to something like Sourceforge or ibilbio, and as long as -everyone who wants the source can get it, we're happy. If the site you point -to objects or goes down, responsibility obviously reverts to you. But there -are plenty of high-bandwidth places that mirror open source for free these -days: sourceforge, OSL, ISC, ibiblio, archive.org, and so on.</p> - -<p>Oh, one last note: if people come to you asking "where's the source" -and your answer doesn't satisfy them, ask yourself "did I identify which -specific version I used, and if I didn't modify it at all did I explicitly -tell them this"? If you don't identify the source you used in enough detail -for open source developers to reproduce what you did, you haven't complied with -your license obligations yet. Identifying the specific source you used -is a very important part of the "written offer" bit that often gets -overlooked.</p> - -<!--#include file="footer.html" --> |