On Tuesday 06 June 2006 08:02, Henry Keultjes wrote: > http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2157587/debian-linux-gains-carrier > > The questions was raised about Debian's OSDL status. Here is a very > positive answer. > > That brings me back to the Ubuntu situation. I have always liked > Chuck's well placed passion for Debian yet I don't quite understand the > gripe with Ubuntu not pushing code upstream. > > Is not the sole requirement of the GPL to publish the code? > As stated, no, the GPL does not require publishing of the code. The GPL requires that the code be distributed or made available to those whom you are distributing the software to. Else-wise, it does not require public publishing. For example: I am a freelance programmer. I have a client that wants a feature added to the GPL'd project SprocketMaker. They pay me to add the feature. The code is still GPL'd, including my changes. - I am required by the GPL to make available to the client the source code (and tools to build it, etc.) - I am not required to feed changes back into development (though why wouldn't I, unless specifically stated not to in contract.) - I do not have to provide the compiled program, or the source to anyone (except the client if I want to get paid.) Is this done in reality? Yes. Is it the standard or usual case? No. Usually, code is contributed back to the community or published in some sort of public manner. In the FOSS world, businesses/individuals are not selling products (or product licenses), but selling services. The only way to effectively advertise those services is to make public your portfolio of work. This is especially true of smaller companies and individual consultants. It is a problem I am facing because few of the businesses I've written anything for around here could see any value to releasing the projects under the GPL. > If the code that Ubuntu produces is worthwhile, is there any reason that > Debian developers cannot just go and get it or is it a question of false > pride on the part of the Debian developers? > If only coding were so simple as going to get code and adding it into your own. Debian, as with all FOSS projects I know of are in a continuous 'developer deficit' --- there's more work than workers. I understand that Debian is better off than some projects, but still there's an enormous amount of work. If it were as simple as dropping someone else's code into the existing base and knowing it wasn't going to break something, I'm sure they'd be jumping at it. They have in fact incorporated things developed by Ubuntu into Debian. The package management system is the heart and soul of the distribution. Work on it is typically much more controlled and tested much more rigorously than any other part of the system (even the kernel in some cases.) It's one thing to grab an installer and modify it for use, it's something completely different to make changes to the package management system. From what I understand, the differences are mostly in where software is installed to. For example, Xyz gets installed into /opt/Xyz/bin on Debian and /usr/share/bin/Xyz on Ubuntu. This sort of change is not something that can be integrated back into the Debian system, because it would break packages that expected to find Xyz at /opt/Xyz/bin. It's a change that's based more on someone's opinion of where packages should be located than anything else that I can tell. Does this sort of thing break packages? Certainly. Is it fixable? Yes. But it takes an enormous amount of effort to go back through existing packages and have them: 1. check the location of Xyz before installation, 2. setup the package to use that location, 3. make sure the package (and all that depend on it) works with both locations of Xyz, and be sure that every single package that depends on Xyz has those changes. > Since Chuck was part of that original Debian "club" he should be > qualified to answer that but I would also like for him to go back to his > old comrades and ask that question - are they griping about a non-issue? > It's a valid question of 'are those changes worth the work it takes to implement them back into the upstream development?' Debian developers would probably say 'no, keeping the entire system stable is more important.' Ubuntu developers would probably say 'yes, this allows us to do ABC faster, and speeds development changes.' Both are absolutely correct. Debian developers will probably continue to do things the 'Debian way'. Ubuntu developers will probably continue to do things the 'Ubuntu way'. They will probably continue to work together to make both distros better (as they have been doing). > Henry Keultjes > Mansfield Ohio USA > > To unsubscribe send to ncolug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in > the Subject field. -- David To unsubscribe send to ncolug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.