Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 16, 2006 02:32 AM
There are at least three things here that should be addressed:
1. The project making the source available. 2. The end-user finding the correct corresponding source. 3. The end-user having adequate information and tools to actually compile said source.
I've distributed custom free software CDs in the past in order to introduce others to free software. I always included source on the same CD. It was an amazing hassle in some cases to figure out whether I was actually including the right source (point 2) and whether I was actually enabling anyone to do anything with it (point 3).
For example: Firefox and the OpenOffice.org suite are the best examples of what a nightmare this is. Technically, the firefox binary that you download right now off the front page is not even free software. (Before you start flaming read the actual license! They include software such as Talkback that is not under a free software license!--or at least they did last time I checked. I think they've been criticized for this and were thinking of changing.)
Anyway, NOW Mozilla also offers a source tarball and build instructions. THAT's such a huge improvement over how things stood even a year ago. You had to retrieve the source from CVS and it was not a simple matter to know whether you were getting the latest source with all changes or the actual source for the binary you wanted to distribute. And then building that was a total crapshoot. Maybe you'd have the right environment, maybe not. There were no instructions explaining how the binary you downloaded was compiled. You had to guess via trial and error and probably download all manner of other tools to actually compile anything.
OpenOffice.org suite--same issue but worse, because the project is about 20 times the size of firefox.
So, I know distributors would prefer to roll a binary and just put it on their website, but the downstream distributors and hopeful modifiers of that software are the ones really screwed if this is allowed.
I think the FSF should seriously consider going even further in the obligations of binary distributors by also requring
1) either a tarball/zip of the exact corresponding source of the binary OR explicit instructions on how to retrieve the exact corresponding source from a source repository such as CVS/subversion AND
2) explicit build instructions explaining how to take that exact corresponding source to produce that binary AND a complete and accurate list of all software with version numbers needed/used to compile that binary.
That's more difficult for the distributor, sure, but it makes life WORLDS easier for the person who actually wants to modify the source (and use the result!) and for those who distribute the source to others who one day might actually try to modify it.
Otherwise people are providing source that mostly matches the binary you're using and that you MIGHT be able to figure out how to build if you work at it long enough, etc. That situation doesn't do anything to preserve the freedoms discussed in the article.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
There are subtle issues here
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 16, 2006 02:32 AM1. The project making the source available.
2. The end-user finding the correct corresponding source.
3. The end-user having adequate information and tools to actually compile said source.
I've distributed custom free software CDs in the past in order to introduce others to free software. I always included source on the same CD. It was an amazing hassle in some cases to figure out whether I was actually including the right source (point 2) and whether I was actually enabling anyone to do anything with it (point 3).
For example: Firefox and the OpenOffice.org suite are the best examples of what a nightmare this is. Technically, the firefox binary that you download right now off the front page is not even free software. (Before you start flaming read the actual license! They include software such as Talkback that is not under a free software license!--or at least they did last time I checked. I think they've been criticized for this and were thinking of changing.)
Anyway, NOW Mozilla also offers a source tarball and build instructions. THAT's such a huge improvement over how things stood even a year ago. You had to retrieve the source from CVS and it was not a simple matter to know whether you were getting the latest source with all changes or the actual source for the binary you wanted to distribute. And then building that was a total crapshoot. Maybe you'd have the right environment, maybe not. There were no instructions explaining how the binary you downloaded was compiled. You had to guess via trial and error and probably download all manner of other tools to actually compile anything.
OpenOffice.org suite--same issue but worse, because the project is about 20 times the size of firefox.
So, I know distributors would prefer to roll a binary and just put it on their website, but the downstream distributors and hopeful modifiers of that software are the ones really screwed if this is allowed.
I think the FSF should seriously consider going even further in the obligations of binary distributors by also requring
1) either a tarball/zip of the exact corresponding source of the binary OR explicit instructions on how to retrieve the exact corresponding source from a source repository such as CVS/subversion AND
2) explicit build instructions explaining how to take that exact corresponding source to produce that binary AND a complete and accurate list of all software with version numbers needed/used to compile that binary.
That's more difficult for the distributor, sure, but it makes life WORLDS easier for the person who actually wants to modify the source (and use the result!) and for those who distribute the source to others who one day might actually try to modify it.
Otherwise people are providing source that mostly matches the binary you're using and that you MIGHT be able to figure out how to build if you work at it long enough, etc. That situation doesn't do anything to preserve the freedoms discussed in the article.
#