Discussion about SPM / Repo (Split from other topic)


That is not the case; GPL is not viral. If its 100% your code, it is your control, not magicly GPLed.


LGPL is due to libraries, where the two are joined at the hip but you want to not infect the joined module.


jeff
 
Well, here we are. Good, Public, (at least I thought they were public,) work just vanishes, and for what gain?
 
ok so can i get the fucking chromium pnd or not? jesus fucking christ, this is......sheesh
 
Lets suppose what you say here is correct (it is not). Wouldn't that make it copyright infringement to make a copy of say an Ubuntu CD for a friend- since you are only redistributing binaries without source?
My understanding was that binary distribution was separate, and that GPL simply meant you could get the source for a binary you had acquired legally.
Not could, you have to provide the source if you were asked for it. Think about it like a point to point licence. You can get the binary only, but if you request the source the one who gave the binary to you must provide the source to you. To stay GPL conform you have to provide this service to anyone you are giving the binary. If you can't or don't want this you are violating the GPL.


The way how you provide the source is not defined. For professional distrubutions you could easily point to the source repositories. I don't know what happens if the one who is requesting the source tells you that he have no internet access, i think you have to provide the source on another path to stay GPL conform.


This is the main purpose of the GPL, protect the availability of the source code.

That's what made commercial GPL software a little more viable in my mind: while anyone could buy the software, recompile the source, and distribute that binary, it was a necessary stumbling block to prevent direct copying of the original.
Commercial usage of GPL programms is possible, but difficult. If you remind the GPL as a point to point licence, you could sell your GPL work 'one time only'. You must deliver the source and your buyer has the same GPL distrubution rights and could legally publish it for free to anyone, which means you can't sell it anymore because the people can get it for free.


This is theoretical because developers of good software still get donations after the release. I didn't see a part of the GPL that you have to give away the code changes you did on GPL code, but if you give, you must give the your source too.

only if someone is nice enough to send it you in private.
No need to go in private for that : this is completely legal ;)
Only if the source is included in that PND files. If you give away GPL software, you must provide the source.


We now have the funny situation where the spied usernames are going to be useful for StreaK. In accordance with the GPL he must provide the source of his published GPL ports. Being bound to the point to point licence he has to provide the source to all downloaders of the specific PNDs. He could ask for your username and crosscheck with the download logfiles. If your username doesn't match he could say 'sorry, i didn't gave you anything, we have no contract nor buisiness nor licence'. But anybody who did the download has a right for the source - and the GPL license to do what the GPL grants, redistribution.


Any volunteers here asking StreaK for the source?
 
He doesn't owe the source of his original works./. the downloaders et al; why would he? He owes the source for the GPL components within any given pnd. When asked, he always says he has done unmodified builds, and only adds his own code as wrappers and choses not to reveal source for that stuff.


He's been a bit silly, but lets not be zealots here.


Ultimately, someone else will just rebuild these binaries and mvoe along, I think.


jeff
 
When asked, he always says he has done unmodified builds, and only adds his own code as wrappers and choses not to reveal source for that stuff.
Sorry, didn't knew that detail. My knowledge of the GPL ends for this specific case. I'm just feeling that the hole open source world would end if GPL code is used (edit to neutral wording) through wrappers by anyone.


The ports he did are not allowed for the rebirth contest?
 
Wrappers are no big deal; if someone makes a wrapper that is closed source, then someone else can replace the wrapper. This is the point :)


The rebirth rules imply that a publicly released app is invalidated for judging, IIRC.


jeff
 
you use his app to download another one of his apps, why would he need to attack over SSH when he can attack locally right on the machine and run whatever he'd want from within the application.


get the giant wooden horse into the city and then worry about someone seeing thru the gates when they got opened ?

Not exactly. No app can run as root unless you enter your password, so an app can't run anything.


It could start bruteforcing in the background though ;)


As said, I doubt StreaK wanted to cause any harm, but it's a potential risk and definitely not very nice doing that.

who needs root when you can access all the user's files.


@StreaK : I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just stating what anyone could do.


unless the Pandora runs every single app as its own user, only allowing access to its own files and read-only shared libraries, and with limited IPC interactions, any software running on the pandora has access to everything of interest.


there's no need for root if all you want is the content of the box, not set the box on fire.


*nix geeks love to think they're safe as long as no one gets root access but all you need is user access on an effectively single-user platform like a personal PC or the Pandora.


getting or not root access is a very moot issue when people start running non-sandboxed binaries like the PND system.


even having the source does not mean much, how many of you fully analyze the whole source before compiling?
 
Only if the source is included in that PND files. If you give away GPL software, you must provide the source.
So you mean most PNDs on the repo are illegal ? and most distrib too ?


The GPL say you need to provide the source, not that it should come in the same package ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
getting or not root access is a very moot issue when people start running non-sandboxed binaries like the PND system.


even having the source does not mean much, how many of you fully analyze the whole source before compiling?

Well, actually a bit better than that. Even if I don't analyze the whole source, or anything of the source, I assume that someone, somewhere, will do that. That is, if there is foul play in an open piece of software, someone will pick up on it and cry bloody murder. That, of course, assumes that the distributed binaries actually come from the offered source, but even there, I assume that someone will figure out, and a bit quicker than with a closed package.
 
Is distributing gpl on a proprietary repo legal?

Just a remainder of how debian does things. Separate non-free repo. Package-user-survey that is voluntary. States license. Source and binary packages
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top