Conversation
Notices
-
@fontana,I assume #RHEL customers get additional Installation Instructions that aren't available in SRPM;Are you saying they *don't* get it?
Tuesday, 07-Jun-11 14:29:43 UTC from web-
@mcepl, I don't hate for-profit companies. Please don't accuse me of things that aren't true. And I have been completely fair IMO.
-
@bkuhn AFAIK, there are no further instructions to customers. Rebuilding SRPMS as opposed to bootstrapping entire distro is easy
-
@rahulsundaram, it's entirely possible merely *having* the binary distribution gives the user enough !GPL -adequate info. I've seen that bf.
-
@bkuhn That is possible but to the best of my knowledge, there is no private instructions to customers. They get the same SRPMS
-
@rahulsundaram,my point is that the ability to examine the binaries themselves & their layout, etc. might be sufficient to meet requirements
-
@bkuhn That sounds weak to me. The only troublesome part is that SRPMS don't necessarily specify exact versions of build deps.
-
@bkuhn Spec file often specifies package names but not specific versions and examining binaries won't reveal that
-
@rahulsundaram,it's generally been !GPL interpretation:if someone skilled in art can easily build &install modified versions,it's acceptable
-
@rahulsundaram, my thought is:binaries,how they appear on filesystem, etc. PLUS everything in the SRPM work together for this. Just a theory
-
@bkuhn I believe Jesse Keating brought this up in a Q&A session about Free software and the cloud that you gave earlier. Saw recorded video
-
@rahulsundaram, I recall. ISTR I told him perhaps #RHEL is violating !GPL. I just don't know;I suspect it isn't,but have no proof either way
-
@kevingranade, if, ∀ !GPL'd software, user can replace it w/ modified version easily & redistribute result, then it's likely compliant.
-
Bradley M. Kuhn
Software Freedom Conservancy
, The GNU Lesser General Public License
, Richard Fontana
@fontana, !Conservancy doesn't require projects be strong copyleft. #Wine has a weak copyleft ( !LGPL ), so proprietary business possible.
-
@fontana Yes, it is the same in Fedora as well. People only raise it about RHEL usually however because of binaries not being public
-
@fontana I don't think it is a big problem. It would nice to fix it but engineering cost would likely be a lot.
-
@fontana I thought their relationship with Wine was better than others like Transgaming who exploited Wine before it switched to LGPL
-
Bradley M. Kuhn
All Things Problematic in this World
, The GNU Lesser General Public License
, Richard Fontana
@fontana,AFAIK #Wine is !LGPL'd & accepts patches w/out copyright assignment;I know of no ongoing action by #Codeweavers that's !problematic
-
@bkuhn what info are you talking about? I do know of one possible GPL issue in RHE[G]L (and most distros), but a corner case:
-
@bkuhn namely, building X using libfoo-V, and shipping X and libfoo-V+1 (binaries and sources). are CS for X complete?
-
@bkuhn why would you need info on how binaries appear on the filesystem? buildreqs and spec files in SRPMS give you that info
-
@lxoliva,it depends on the license of libfoo & X, I suspect. (BTW,never use X as metasyntactic variable for a Free Sw program:too confusing)
Osama Khalid likes this. -
@fontana besides, GPLv3 only requires Installation Information for software that is part of a User Product, not a sw distro
-
@bkuhn replace with modified version: rpm -U [--nodeps]; redistribute result: publish *.rpm; anything missing?
-
@bkuhn doesn't it qualify for the ROM exception? how do you modify software in a CD-ROM?
-
@bkuhn oops, indeed, sorry. make it P
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the