4 ms·

>Now-a-days Linux distros like elementaryOS and ZorinOS take a different approach to policing the distribution. The main tactic they use now is to control the f

>Now-a-days Linux distros like elementaryOS and ZorinOS take a different approach to policing the distribution. The main tactic they use now is to control the flow of information on GitHub and social media like Reddit. Both distros have rules on their various subreddits (/r/elementaryos and /r/zorinos) that users cannot post links and sometimes information on how to build your own is removed. If someone builds their own .iso or shares the information to do so, they will have their post deleted and be banned. >A post submitted to /r/zorinos was acquired by using DHT scraping to find the ZorinOS 16 Pro download. It also verified that the SHA256 sum matched the one on the ZorinOS website which rules out any potential for malicious activity.The post was specifically removed for “software piracy”. ... >Technically this is not a violation of the GPL because they are allowed to police their various forums however they wish. I am still free to redistribute the software and they have still published their source code changes, but it seems like a strange loophole. I wonder actually... Section 10 Paragraph 3 of gplv3[0]: >You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. [0]:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

MrStonedOne 5y ago
also: Section 6 subsection d, sentence 3: If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
- kube-system 5y ago
  The "you" in this situation is the licensee, i.e. the user. This section means: If I posted my source for a GPL-licensed work solely on Reddit and it is removed, I would be breaking GPL if I didn't find another place to host it. The license doesn't apply to the host or anyone who removed my post.
  - MrStonedOne 5y ago
    The license applies to the entity that created those two distros, and if the same entity(ies) runs those subreddits, it applies to them. They license linux from linus (and fsf generally), they are licensees as much as licensers
    - kube-system 5y ago
      The GPL requires someone to publish their own source if they distribute binaries. The GPL does not say that you must publish anyone else’s derivative work. The concept you are suggesting is ridiculous. Imagine if Linus had to host every kernel fork ever.
kube-system 5y ago
> of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. ..is the key phrase. GPL is only an exception to copyright. It gives people the right to be exempt from restrictions that copyright law places on them by default. It doesn't give anyone the right to use trademarks, participate in the community, or anything else -- because those things were never restricted by copyright law in the first place.
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  Blocking somebody from distributing the software within your community would count as restricting the rights granted under the license.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    It grants the right for you to distribute it — full stop. The license does not grant you the privilege to use any particular means to do so. It is up to you to distribute it yourself. It would be silly if it did. Torvalds is not required to host your code for you on his website, nor is he required to accept your PR. GPL clearly places the obligation to distribute source code on the licensee.
    - MrStonedOne 5y ago
      Yes, but if the licenser, places restrictions on a forum they control, on the distribution of the source or object forms, then can the licenser really say they aren't restricting the rights of people who come in possession of the source to distribute source and object forms of the work. downstream oses are licensees of the source as much as they are licensers, they have to obey the gpl and not do anything to prevent people from conveying the source and object forms of the work.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        It doesn’t say that licensors can’t impose any restrictions whatsoever. It says: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. The GPL grants the legal right to distribute. Meaning, you can’t be held liable for copyright infringement if you distribute it. GPL projects can and usually do limit the people who can participate in their project. This is completely legal.

MrStonedOne 5y ago

also: Section 6 subsection d, sentence 3: If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

kube-system 5y ago
The "you" in this situation is the licensee, i.e. the user. This section means: If I posted my source for a GPL-licensed work solely on Reddit and it is removed, I would be breaking GPL if I didn't find another place to host it. The license doesn't apply to the host or anyone who removed my post.
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  The license applies to the entity that created those two distros, and if the same entity(ies) runs those subreddits, it applies to them. They license linux from linus (and fsf generally), they are licensees as much as licensers
  - kube-system 5y ago
    The GPL requires someone to publish their own source if they distribute binaries. The GPL does not say that you must publish anyone else’s derivative work. The concept you are suggesting is ridiculous. Imagine if Linus had to host every kernel fork ever.

kube-system 5y ago

> of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. ..is the key phrase. GPL is only an exception to copyright. It gives people the right to be exempt from restrictions that copyright law places on them by default. It doesn't give anyone the right to use trademarks, participate in the community, or anything else -- because those things were never restricted by copyright law in the first place.

MrStonedOne 5y ago
Blocking somebody from distributing the software within your community would count as restricting the rights granted under the license.
- kube-system 5y ago
  It grants the right for you to distribute it — full stop. The license does not grant you the privilege to use any particular means to do so. It is up to you to distribute it yourself. It would be silly if it did. Torvalds is not required to host your code for you on his website, nor is he required to accept your PR. GPL clearly places the obligation to distribute source code on the licensee.
  - MrStonedOne 5y ago
    Yes, but if the licenser, places restrictions on a forum they control, on the distribution of the source or object forms, then can the licenser really say they aren't restricting the rights of people who come in possession of the source to distribute source and object forms of the work. downstream oses are licensees of the source as much as they are licensers, they have to obey the gpl and not do anything to prevent people from conveying the source and object forms of the work.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      It doesn’t say that licensors can’t impose any restrictions whatsoever. It says: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. The GPL grants the legal right to distribute. Meaning, you can’t be held liable for copyright infringement if you distribute it. GPL projects can and usually do limit the people who can participate in their project. This is completely legal.