The GPL is an example of a “copyleft” license. Don’t get hung up on the lingo. The point is certain licenses like the GPL and LGPL have licensing terms which specifically cover redistribution as a distinct action from mere use. The GPL and the LGPL for example require that anyone receiving binary version of a codebase licensed under GPL or LGPL must be given the opportunity to request and receive the corresponding source code associated with those binaries.

Not all OSI approved licenses require access to corresponding source however, so as long as Canonical thought about compliance issues when building the codebase its not difficult to avoid a problem. There are still many OSI approved licensing options which don’t require access to corresponding source. And in the cases of interpreted languages like python, its usually a moot issue entirely as the scripts are the source code.

In any event, the only people who have the ability to verify this are people who are purchasing the product (and the current crop of beta testers). There are no freeware demos to inspect. If no one buys it, there’s obviously no potential for compliance issues.

-jef

That was always the problem with creating closed SaaS products and then later on expanding the service scope by distributing it. I hope they’re looking into all compliance.