4 ms·

> In particular, e.g. RedHat's policy of publishing only the "final" source code for their patched kernels, and not the git repo with history (which is what the

> In particular, e.g. RedHat's policy of publishing only the "final" source code for their patched kernels, and not the git repo with history (which is what they use when developing it internally) is a straight-up GPL violation as far as I'm concerned. I can see what you mean. At the same time, there's always been room for the 'cathedral' form of free software. GNU itself was once much more closed-off when it came to source releases.

not2b 4y ago
The difficulty with the argument that only publishing "final" versions is a GPL violation is that the FSF itself used to restrict access to development versions of their code and only provide final releases, back in the mid 1990s. Doing development in the open was something egcs pioneered; in the old days only a small set of contributors would have access to pre-release versions and they were strongly pressured not to share it. So it's hard to argue that if Red Hat does things the same way the FSF did for at least its first decade, it's violating the GPL.
- lmm 4y ago
  The FSF held the copyright on those projects (and required copyright assignment from outside contributors) didn't they? Whereas although RedHat is a significant contributor to Linux, there are many other copyright holders. (Also, the idea of using source history during development was a lot less widespread then; I don't know if CVS even has a "blame" function, and it would presumably have required connecting to the server if it did)
  - not2b 4y ago
    Not sure what difference this makes. The GPL is binding at the point where someone ships a release. They aren't obligated to ship the details of every internal partial version, which might even include things that can't be legally shipped (confidential information, for example), which is what a complete git history would contain.
    - lmm 4y ago
      > Not sure what difference this makes. If you're shipping something derived from other people's copyrighted work, you need a license and so you need to comply with the terms of that license. If you're shipping something that you hold the copyright on, then you don't need anyone's permission and aren't obliged to follow any license terms. > They aren't obligated to ship the details of every internal partial version, They are obliged to ship "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I would think that for most contemporary development workflows (where one is accustomed to using blame/bisect/etc. during development) that would be a git repository. > which might even include things that can't be legally shipped (confidential information, for example), which is what a complete git history would contain. That's their problem. You don't get an exemption from the GPL just because complying is difficult.
      - steve_gh 4y ago
        Now that is interesting. If you release a full Git repository, it may well contain a lot of information that is potentially PII. Names and email addresses may well be PII, commit timestamps might be as they may indicate someone's location. If you are releasing PII, GDPR comes into play if any of your contributers are European. Does your right to the source under a GPL type licence trump their right to privacy under GDPR. If you are arguing that full Git repository releases are necessary to meet GPL licence conditions, then I think you are making this argument
        lmm 4y ago
        > Does your right to the source under a GPL type licence trump their right to privacy under GDPR. If you are arguing that full Git repository releases are necessary to meet GPL licence conditions, then I think you are making this argument It's not that one trumps the other, it's that both are legal requirements. If your project is derived from GPLed code but you can't legally publish the source for other reasons then you can't legally distribute your project at all. Just like if you make a project that combines code that's under two incompatible licenses, it may just not be legally possible to distribute that project at all. (See e.g. the Wii versions of Freddi Fish etc., which had to be withdrawn from sale because they were distributing ScummVM-derived code without complying with the GPL). (Of course in practice, most likely you can scrub PII from a repository without making it any harder to do development. You just have to put a few minutes into fixing the problem instead of using it as an excuse)

not2b 4y ago

The difficulty with the argument that only publishing "final" versions is a GPL violation is that the FSF itself used to restrict access to development versions of their code and only provide final releases, back in the mid 1990s. Doing development in the open was something egcs pioneered; in the old days only a small set of contributors would have access to pre-release versions and they were strongly pressured not to share it. So it's hard to argue that if Red Hat does things the same way the FSF did for at least its first decade, it's violating the GPL.

lmm 4y ago
The FSF held the copyright on those projects (and required copyright assignment from outside contributors) didn't they? Whereas although RedHat is a significant contributor to Linux, there are many other copyright holders. (Also, the idea of using source history during development was a lot less widespread then; I don't know if CVS even has a "blame" function, and it would presumably have required connecting to the server if it did)
- not2b 4y ago
  Not sure what difference this makes. The GPL is binding at the point where someone ships a release. They aren't obligated to ship the details of every internal partial version, which might even include things that can't be legally shipped (confidential information, for example), which is what a complete git history would contain.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > Not sure what difference this makes. If you're shipping something derived from other people's copyrighted work, you need a license and so you need to comply with the terms of that license. If you're shipping something that you hold the copyright on, then you don't need anyone's permission and aren't obliged to follow any license terms. > They aren't obligated to ship the details of every internal partial version, They are obliged to ship "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I would think that for most contemporary development workflows (where one is accustomed to using blame/bisect/etc. during development) that would be a git repository. > which might even include things that can't be legally shipped (confidential information, for example), which is what a complete git history would contain. That's their problem. You don't get an exemption from the GPL just because complying is difficult.
    - steve_gh 4y ago
      Now that is interesting. If you release a full Git repository, it may well contain a lot of information that is potentially PII. Names and email addresses may well be PII, commit timestamps might be as they may indicate someone's location. If you are releasing PII, GDPR comes into play if any of your contributers are European. Does your right to the source under a GPL type licence trump their right to privacy under GDPR. If you are arguing that full Git repository releases are necessary to meet GPL licence conditions, then I think you are making this argument
      - lmm 4y ago
        > Does your right to the source under a GPL type licence trump their right to privacy under GDPR. If you are arguing that full Git repository releases are necessary to meet GPL licence conditions, then I think you are making this argument It's not that one trumps the other, it's that both are legal requirements. If your project is derived from GPLed code but you can't legally publish the source for other reasons then you can't legally distribute your project at all. Just like if you make a project that combines code that's under two incompatible licenses, it may just not be legally possible to distribute that project at all. (See e.g. the Wii versions of Freddi Fish etc., which had to be withdrawn from sale because they were distributing ScummVM-derived code without complying with the GPL). (Of course in practice, most likely you can scrub PII from a repository without making it any harder to do development. You just have to put a few minutes into fixing the problem instead of using it as an excuse)