#4265 BLOC -: OLPC needs to comply with the GPL (eg "COPYING" file barely present in binary builds)

[Zarro Boogs per Child]

#4265: OLPC needs to comply with the GPL (eg "COPYING" file barely present in
binary builds)
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  gnu      |       Owner:  jg       
     Type:  defect   |      Status:  new      
 Priority:  blocker  |   Milestone:           
Component:  distro   |     Version:  Build 542
 Keywords:           |    Verified:  0        
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
 The GPL requires that a copy of the GPL license itself be provided to
 recipients of binaries, to notify them of their rights.

 I don't have a modern build (just 542), but the only COPYING it has is in
 /usr/share/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING.  Surely there should be a
 copy of it in a more global and prominent location -- and GUI end users
 should be notified of its existence.  Debian puts such licenses in
 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, and puts a pointer in the text of
 /usr/share/doc/(program)/copyright to the shared copy.  Fedora doesn't
 seem to have a similar convention.

 (To be effective when shipping hundreds of thousands of units to non-
 English speakers, a translation of the license should be provided as
 well.)

 In addition, a program that isn't the exact original source released by
 the author "must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under
 this License" (GPLv3 sec 5b; also in GPLv2).  While a license notice at
 the top of each source file is "prominent" in source code, a nonexistent
 or hidden string in the binary can hardly be called "prominent", if it is
 never displayed to the user.

 GPL binaries can only be legitimately copied by including a "written
 offer" to provide the source code (and, for GPLv3, any "Installation
 Information" needed to get past the DRM and actually install recompiled
 source code).  OLPC does not provide such a written offer.  (And even if
 one knows about the complex and arcane tools required to extract the
 source tree across the Internet, it's not obvious how to find the source
 code that matches a particular binary build.  The *matching* source is
 required.)

 Both the GPL2 "COPYING" and the GPL3 "COPYING" need to be provided in the
 binary, since different software that OLPC ships is licensed under each.
 Other software on the machine may require other licenses to be provided
 and documented.

 Perhaps the Sugar GUI needs some kind of "About box" that provides a
 readily accessible way for end users to find out that they're running free
 software (not just Sugar, but all the stuff under the hood), that it came
 with a pile of rights, and how to exercise them.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://dev.laptop.org/ticket/4265>
One Laptop Per Child <https://dev.laptop.org>
OLPC bug tracking system