SimplyMEPIS GPL source release

[Posted August 1, 2006 by corbet]

The SimplyMEPIS distribution, while popular with some users, has recently taken a bit of criticism for its failure to comply completely with the GPL. That criticism should end, now that the distribution has announced a full GPL source release. There are some interesting comments in the associated GPL compliance FAQ, however.

SimplyMEPIS GPL source release

Posted Aug 1, 2006 14:20 UTC (Tue) by tredman (guest, #37203) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, I think the important thing here is that he's not bitter about anything...

SimplyMEPIS GPL source release

Posted Aug 1, 2006 15:03 UTC (Tue) by chill633 (guest, #16013) [Link]

No kidding. If that is his attitude, why doesn't he make SimplyMEPIS-BSD and be done with it?

For that matter, if this is such a big deal, why aren't there more BSD "distributions" based off of one of the three main cores, Free, Open or Net?

SimplyMEPIS GPL source release

Posted Aug 1, 2006 14:28 UTC (Tue) by richo123 (guest, #24309) [Link] (3 responses)

From the FAQ:

"Q4. Does this mean that if I give a copy of MEPIS to a friend, I also have to give them a copy of the GPLed source code?

A4. According to the Free Software Foundation, if they want the source code, it means exactly that. Whether you give MEPIS to a friend or install it on a computer and sell it, or even if you give it away on the street corner, you are still obligated by the restrictions of the GPL license."

And this means? IANAL but a quick link to the MEPIS source release would suffice I would have thought.

Calm down Warren it's not a biggie.

SimplyMEPIS GPL source release

Posted Aug 1, 2006 15:03 UTC (Tue) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (1 responses)

Indeed it would; the GPL is rather clearer on this than the Mepis FAQ. It's a wonder anyone manages to misunderstand it. There are three ways to satisfy the source requirements (clauses 3 a,b,c) - In a nutshell:

a) Give them the source with the binaries
b) Offer, in writing, to give them the source at a later date. You do have to be able to make good on the offer up to three years later, so it's best to make sure you actually have the source. If you're planning to get it from somewhere else and that place disappears before your three year obligation is up you can't keep your promise.
c) Pass along the offer you got from your supplier. Only works for non-commercial distribution, but if I give you (say) an Ubuntu CD which has the written offer written on its sleeve then I'm OK. If I sell you an Ubuntu CD I have use either option a or b.

SimplyMEPIS GPL source release

Posted Aug 3, 2006 16:19 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link]

That's why Mepis, in the FAQ, grants an "agency relationship" to any individual or not-for-profit organization (and explicitly names a few). Acto Mepis, anyone with said relationship who redistributes Mepis binaries can refer back to Mepis to supply the sources -- this meets the 3c requirement.

Mepis offers the source on a couple of DVDs for $29.95 -- this is also okay with the GPL, which permits reasonable media and handling charges. The written offer (satisfying 3b) is linked to from the FAQ page.

SimplyMEPIS GPL source release

Posted Aug 1, 2006 16:38 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

"And this means? IANAL but a quick link to the MEPIS source release would suffice I would have thought."

Well, section 3c only applies if the distribution is non-commercial AND you got the software in executable or object form from the place you are referring people to. There are two issues with that - (a) what is "non-commercial" (I'm pretty sure it's a term that would mean something different to a lawyer than it might to the average software developer) and (b) it probably doesn't allow distribution under this clause if you have modified the software .

Strange Mepis analysis of the GPL

Posted Aug 1, 2006 18:49 UTC (Tue) by jimwelch (guest, #178) [Link]

>> The FSF recommends that you assign your copyrights to them, so they can insure your software "freedom."

What part of **recommends** does he not understand? Most programmers do not have the power (read money) to enforce the GPL on their own software, but some do, like gplviolations.org.

>> If the FSF succeeds, all source code will be GPL licensed and controlled by the Free Software Foundation;

Again choosing GPL and assigning copyright to FSF are two **distinct** actions! You could assign a copyright to them that was under any license.

>> and all Laws regarding software patents and copyrights will be rendered ineffective.

Buzzzz! Wrong, try again Warren! Control you anger on the internet, everyone is watching! Billions and billions of us! :)

SimplyMEPIS GPL source release

Posted Aug 1, 2006 20:51 UTC (Tue) by sanjoy (guest, #5026) [Link] (2 responses)

The "automatic agency relationship" seems like a trick to evade the GPL's source-distribution requirements. Does it work?

SimplyMEPIS GPL source release

Posted Aug 1, 2006 21:59 UTC (Tue) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link] (1 responses)

Their form doesn't seem to effectively evade anything. It's explicitly granted only for noncommercial distribution, so it's the same as telling people to use 3(c).

On the other hand they could be setting themselves up for neverending pain this way. Normally, distributing under 3(b) means you have to keep the source available for at least 3 years after you stop distributing the binaries. But with this automatic agency relationship, how will MEPIS ever manage to stop distributing those binaries? There will always be someone out there who still has a copy and can distribute it in their name. So the window on having to keep source available will never close.

It sounds like they were so excited about having to distribute source that they want to keep doing it for ever and ever :)

SimplyMEPIS GPL source release

Posted Aug 2, 2006 2:21 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

One would think that they would go easy on themselves and simply add source code packages to their official cdrom set.

But they can do what they want.