From e258af3efa2a89b80cbe330a300ffedcc2aed707 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rob Landley Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 18:09:49 -0600 Subject: Update web pages. --- www/licenserant.html | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+) create mode 100755 www/licenserant.html (limited to 'www/licenserant.html') diff --git a/www/licenserant.html b/www/licenserant.html new file mode 100755 index 00000000..e3c0a927 --- /dev/null +++ b/www/licenserant.html @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ + + +

The reason for the clarification of section 3 is that +what the FSF did to Mepis was inexcusable. (Further discussed +in this +thread.)

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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 don't 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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ + -- cgit v1.2.3