I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not distributing source
code to GPL packages that they distribute. In particular, I looked at
http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html#license and found
the following text:
If not otherwise specified, the software on the CD falls under the
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. Similar to other Open Source licenses,
this means that you can copy, modify, redistribute and even resell
the CD without restrictions, as long as the recipient receives the
same license. The source code of the standard packages on the CD are
available from their respective original providers (for example on
the FTP servers at Debian, RedHat, Mandrake). Special components such
as the KNOPPIX kernel or the automatic hardware detection source code
can be downloaded from http://www.knopper.net/download/knoppix/ if
not already available in the /usr/src directory on the CD. Individual
packages, as specified by the GPL, may fall under another license
(for example Netscape). If in doubt, the licenses can be found in the
help sections or the DEB-database (dpkg -p package-name) of each
software package.
I'm sort of annoyed by this because it's often very inconvenient to go
around the net putting together all the source code necessary to
reproduce some CD image . In addition, the GPL often make it true
that I either declined source code or have source code whenever I have
binaries. The only case where this is not true is when I am given a
written offer to get source code, but that's fairly rare.
That's convenient for me as a developer and user because it means I
can figure out how things work or change them. I'm considering
complaining about Knoppix not because I want to be excessively
pendantic about legal issues, but because I have found the current
practice makes it sufficiently inconevnient to figure out what their
CD does in some cases that I will choose not to look at the source
code. I believe that if the GPL were followed I would have had the
source code I wanted conveniently available and would have easily
figured out the questions I had.
Questions for this list:
1) My interpretation of the GPL is correct, isn't it? I'm fairly certain on
this one.
2) Am I being excessively unreasonable to complain to the authors
about this GPL violation if it is actually getting in my way and
making my life inconvenient?
3) Would anyone be willing to help with souch a complaint? In
particular, I believe that someone who could point to convincing
evdience that our interpretation of the GPL is correct would be
useful. There may be a language issue and it is always nice to
have something to say in response to "No you are just reading that
legal document incorrectly." In addition, if it becomes necessary
is there anyone around who has contributed to GPLed software
included in Knoppix who would be willing to formally complain as a
copyright holder if it comes to that?
Thanks,
--Sam
