On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 17:18 +0200, Mivz wrote:
> Mike Doty wrote:
> > Mivz wrote:
> >>> Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
> >>> How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
> >>> just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
> > Very free. There are many project sites that will host your content if
> > you have it under a GPL or similar license. Similarly, as long as you
> > provide the source, you satisfy the main point of GPL. Thousands of
> > projects do exactly this without any input from a lawyer.
> But then it's still 'free beer', and not 'freedom'. I still can not
> write a patch and make a cd with the patch applied to give to my mum and
> my friends, without the risk of my intelligence being stolen and abused.
> Or I have to go through the hassle of finding a provider, which of
> course needs attention too.
This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is
the patches. If you, for example, made a Gentoo-based distribution, and
made changes to 3 packages, you would only need provide the source for
those three packages. At most, providing a link to the upstream (us)
packages/code/etc for everything else would be required. Also, you are
only required to provide source to the people you provide binaries to,
and you're only required to do so on request. Meaning that if you made
a CD and only gave it to your mom, you don't need a server. You just
need to burn her a CD of source if she asked. It really is that simple.
The only way you need a server is if you're going about distributing it
to the world, and you made a ton of changes. Remember, the GPL just
says that you have to provide the code. Pointing someone to where they
can get it *is* providing it, so long as any patches/changes you've made
are also available under some means.
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer