3 ms·

The requirement to distribute source means you have to provide the exact source for any binary that you distributed, for three years. And the source is defined

by not2b 6y ago

The requirement to distribute source means you have to provide the exact source for any binary that you distributed, for three years. And the source is defined as " the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". A pointer to the upstream tarball plus a poorly organized directory with 58 patches in it isn't "the preferred form of the work ...". SRPMs are an easy way to make sure that you got it right, that the source really corresponds to be binary. Attempting to add speed bumps risks getting it wrong and providing a way for pissed-off developers to make trouble.

jkaplowitz 6y ago
I think the alternative which the other commenter had in mind was simply providing desired SRPMS to customers reactively upon request, possibly with a nonzero charge to cover, rather than proactively providing them to all customers in bulk. The GPL certainly allows this, as opposed to a tarball and patches which you're right is inadequate. Interesting wrinkle in the GPL's written offer option: the offer must be valid for "any third party", not only direct customers. But, it's certainly possible for the included written offer to reference an email address or website that is unique to each paying customer, such that valid request coming from a third party would be traceable to the intermediate paying customer whose support contract would then be canceled by Red Hat. Does anyone know if Red Hat does this kind of watermarking of the GPL written offers, or if a licensee could share the offer anonymously, leak-style, and not get caught by the support contract people?
macksd 6y ago
I don't disagree, but I've seen other open-source companies view the tarball as their source release and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you could at least make enough of an argument to get a judge to go along with it long enough to make it prohibitively expensive to reverse.

by not2b 6y ago

jkaplowitz 6y ago

I think the alternative which the other commenter had in mind was simply providing desired SRPMS to customers reactively upon request, possibly with a nonzero charge to cover, rather than proactively providing them to all customers in bulk. The GPL certainly allows this, as opposed to a tarball and patches which you're right is inadequate. Interesting wrinkle in the GPL's written offer option: the offer must be valid for "any third party", not only direct customers. But, it's certainly possible for the included written offer to reference an email address or website that is unique to each paying customer, such that valid request coming from a third party would be traceable to the intermediate paying customer whose support contract would then be canceled by Red Hat. Does anyone know if Red Hat does this kind of watermarking of the GPL written offers, or if a licensee could share the offer anonymously, leak-style, and not get caught by the support contract people?

macksd 6y ago

I don't disagree, but I've seen other open-source companies view the tarball as their source release and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you could at least make enough of an argument to get a judge to go along with it long enough to make it prohibitively expensive to reverse.