Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 16, 2006 12:27 AM
I see a problem in this!
It's ok to have large community distros and manufacturers that include GPL'ed code because they have the resources and the time to do it. But, where this is unfair, in the spirit of openness, is the small dirivative distros!
There are hundreds of small distros that are only maintained by one or two people (just look at DistroWatch, or the distros that are so small/new their not even on DistroWatch). For them it is inconvenient/impracticle for them to have to store the binaries and the sources even if they made no changes to the sources from the parent distro.
It hinders them from: "(2) to redistribute it, and (3) to distribute modified versions."
This will hurt and maybe even stop people from making small distros; and I believe that goes against everthing the GPL stands for because it is hindering/burdening individuals from comming out with, lets say, a LiveCD or a install CD. Most of the time the small distros are only a customized picking and chooseing of the binaries that are all wanted on one CD. After it is installed any binaies that are needed are got from the parent distro.
I propose that the GPL be changed some how to favor/allow the small distros to continue to be developed with out all the burded that comes with the GPL. It should be that any small derivative distro only has to host the sources to the included binaries if they have made any changes, or they are no longer available on the parent distros servers. Also, a note or link has to be made stating that the sources are found at the parents distro's site or home page of the maintainer.
I myself was thinking about making a LiveCD, but have been discouraged because of the leagal trouble that might insue if I don't release the sources also; even though I would not make any changes.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
GPL is hurting small derivative distros
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 16, 2006 12:27 AMIt's ok to have large community distros and manufacturers that include GPL'ed code because they have the resources and the time to do it. But, where this is unfair, in the spirit of openness, is the small dirivative distros!
There are hundreds of small distros that are only maintained by one or two people (just look at DistroWatch, or the distros that are so small/new their not even on DistroWatch). For them it is inconvenient/impracticle for them to have to store the binaries and the sources even if they made no changes to the sources from the parent distro.
It hinders them from:
"(2) to redistribute it, and (3) to distribute modified versions."
This will hurt and maybe even stop people from making small distros; and I believe that goes against everthing the GPL stands for because it is hindering/burdening individuals from comming out with, lets say, a LiveCD or a install CD. Most of the time the small distros are only a customized picking and chooseing of the binaries that are all wanted on one CD. After it is installed any binaies that are needed are got from the parent distro.
I propose that the GPL be changed some how to favor/allow the small distros to continue to be developed with out all the burded that comes with the GPL. It should be that any small derivative distro only has to host the sources to the included binaries if they have made any changes, or they are no longer available on the parent distros servers. Also, a note or link has to be made stating that the sources are found at the parents distro's site or home page of the maintainer.
I myself was thinking about making a LiveCD, but have been discouraged because of the leagal trouble that might insue if I don't release the sources also; even though I would not make any changes.
#