From javiplx at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 10:23:31 2008 From: javiplx at gmail.com (Javier Palacios) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:23:31 +0100 Subject: Differences from GPL to LGPL Message-ID: Hello, This is probably a recurring question, although I've been looking at the website and I didn't found a reference. And a wider internet search didn't clarify my view. That is basically static vs. dynamic linking. Most of the references I've found state that linking with GPL libraries means derivative work and the source must be GPL. And my view is that it only happens if the linking is static. If dynamic linking is done, no GPL covered binaries must be released to user, and, at least theoretically, the released binaries should be able to use dinamically any library with the same API. That has been my view for a long time, but a recent discussion within my current company (desperately searching for LGPL code) showed me that it was not a shared opinion. Javier Palacios From mathfox at xs4all.nl Fri Dec 5 12:03:07 2008 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:03:07 +0100 Subject: Differences from GPL to LGPL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49390A6B.4080506@xs4all.nl> Javier Palacios wrote: > That is basically static vs. dynamic linking. Most of the references > I've found state that linking with GPL libraries means derivative work > and the source must be GPL. > > And my view is that it only happens if the linking is static. If dynamic > linking is done, no GPL covered binaries must be released to user, > and, at least theoretically, the released binaries should be able to use > dinamically any library with the same API. > > That has been my view for a long time, but a recent discussion within > my current company (desperately searching for LGPL code) showed > me that it was not a shared opinion. While your analysis is correct for your binary, your customer, the end user, would need a copy of the binaries of the shared library. If you supply that copy, you implicitly accept the GPL by distributing a copy of that shared library. And via your (incidental) distribution of the shared library the conditions of the GPL extend to your code. Unless (GPLv2 section 3): > However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not > include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or > binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) > of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that > component itself accompanies the executable. Peter. From mathfox at xs4all.nl Sun Dec 7 13:02:17 2008 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:02:17 +0100 Subject: Differences from GPL to LGPL In-Reply-To: <493BB4BC.8010107@mauve.plus.com> References: <49390A6B.4080506@xs4all.nl> <493BB4BC.8010107@mauve.plus.com> Message-ID: <493BBB49.9090205@xs4all.nl> Ian Stirling wrote: > Peter Roozemaal wrote: >> Javier Palacios wrote: >> >>> That is basically static vs. dynamic linking. Most of the references >>> I've found state that linking with GPL libraries means derivative work >>> and the source must be GPL. >>> >>> And my view is that it only happens if the linking is static. If dynamic >>> linking is done, no GPL covered binaries must be released to user, >>> and, at least theoretically, the released binaries should be able to use >>> dinamically any library with the same API. >>> >>> That has been my view for a long time, but a recent discussion within >>> my current company (desperately searching for LGPL code) showed >>> me that it was not a shared opinion. >> >> While your analysis is correct for your binary, your customer, the end >> user, would need a copy of the binaries of the shared library. If you >> supply that copy, you implicitly accept the GPL by distributing a copy >> of that shared library. And via your (incidental) distribution of the >> shared library the conditions of the GPL extend to your code. > > Doesn't the distribution of binaries of a LGPL binary simply mean that > you need to offer source for that LGPL binary? > Not anything that may be linked by it? > We were discussing issues of dynamically linking with a GPL library; the obligations after linking with a LGPL library are spelled out in section 6 of the LGPLv2.1: - make source code for the library available - offer source or linkable object code (a dynamically linked executable) for the rest of the application Off course the discussion about the limits of copyrights that Javier brought up applies to LGPL code too. However there is less reason to play his game with LGPL code. Peter. From henrik at henriknordstrom.net Thu Dec 11 03:52:57 2008 From: henrik at henriknordstrom.net (Henrik Nordstrom) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:52:57 +0100 Subject: Differences from GPL to LGPL In-Reply-To: <49390A6B.4080506@xs4all.nl> References: <49390A6B.4080506@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <1228963977.23256.162.camel@localhost.localdomain> fre 2008-12-05 klockan 12:03 +0100 skrev Peter Roozemaal: > While your analysis is correct for your binary, your customer, the end > user, would need a copy of the binaries of the shared library. If you > supply that copy, you implicitly accept the GPL by distributing a copy > of that shared library. And via your (incidental) distribution of the > shared library the conditions of the GPL extend to your code. Additionally if you when building the binary include GPL licensed headers from the GPL licensed library you use as reference then the binary will get tainted by the GPL license of the headers. This is very obvious if those headers contain inline GPL licensed functions which gets compiled into the application, but applies otherwise as well imho. Regards Henrik From david at davidkra.net Fri Dec 19 07:13:27 2008 From: david at davidkra.net (David Kraeutmann) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:13:27 +0100 Subject: Gira Homeserver GPL Violation In-Reply-To: <2cb9058c0812181904q4cf3717ata396c2001f33b927@mail.gmail.com> References: <2cb9058c0812181904q4cf3717ata396c2001f33b927@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb9058c0812182213x6984c826qe621e73f3bb20985@mail.gmail.com> Hello, I found out that the Gira Homeserver firmware violates the GPL: it uses at least the Linux Kernel and Busybox and provides a GPL notice, but no source code is available. Gira's website: http://www.gira.de Homeserver Firmware download: http://www.gira.de/download/index.html?id=1043 Regards, David Kraeutmann From lennon at orcon.net.nz Fri Dec 19 07:34:45 2008 From: lennon at orcon.net.nz (Craig Whitmore) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:34:45 +1300 Subject: Gira Homeserver GPL Violation In-Reply-To: <2cb9058c0812182213x6984c826qe621e73f3bb20985@mail.gmail.com> References: <2cb9058c0812181904q4cf3717ata396c2001f33b927@mail.gmail.com> <2cb9058c0812182213x6984c826qe621e73f3bb20985@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1229668485.25835.89.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 07:13 +0100, David Kraeutmann wrote: > http://www.gira.de/download/index.html?id=1043 > Hello, > I found out that the Gira Homeserver firmware violates the GPL: it > uses at least the Linux Kernel and Busybox and provides a GPL notice, > but no source code is available. > Gira's website: http://www.gira.de > Homeserver Firmware download: > > http://www.gira.de/download/index.html?id=1043 And what do they say about it? have you contacted them? Thanks From david at davidkra.net Sat Dec 20 21:16:11 2008 From: david at davidkra.net (David Kraeutmann) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:16:11 +0100 Subject: Gira Homeserver GPL Violation In-Reply-To: <1229668485.25835.89.camel@localhost> References: <2cb9058c0812181904q4cf3717ata396c2001f33b927@mail.gmail.com> <2cb9058c0812182213x6984c826qe621e73f3bb20985@mail.gmail.com> <1229668485.25835.89.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <2cb9058c0812201216s43a5d001s9f341716b6024dd8@mail.gmail.com> Yes, I contacted them two times, the first time they answered that they will include a GPL notice with every Homeserver and firmware package. After that I wrote them that they also need to release the source code of the GPL'd projects; they didn't answer on that message. Thanks, David On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Craig Whitmore wrote: > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 07:13 +0100, David Kraeutmann wrote: >> http://www.gira.de/download/index.html?id=1043 > >> Hello, >> I found out that the Gira Homeserver firmware violates the GPL: it >> uses at least the Linux Kernel and Busybox and provides a GPL notice, >> but no source code is available. > >> Gira's website: http://www.gira.de >> Homeserver Firmware download: > >> http://www.gira.de/download/index.html?id=1043 > > And what do they say about it? have you contacted them? > > Thanks > > > > > > > From gplviol at encambio.com Mon Dec 29 17:42:59 2008 From: gplviol at encambio.com (Stephan) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:42:59 +0100 Subject: Unsure of GPL privilege to distribute Message-ID: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> Hello legal list, Please advise if my questions should go to the tech list or some other list. In europe, at which point is GPL software considered 'distributed'? I would like to distribute a GPL software title to everybody, and am unsure that I'm allowed to do so. It seems to me that if this software was ever 'distributed', then I'm allowed to distribute it. What is the proper place to ask basic legal questions regarding GPL licensing and Copyright ownership for software in europe? Specific details of my case (partly hypothetical and partly real) are below. Regards, Stephan ---- Full details of my questions ---- Original situation ------------------ A software engineer (author) who works at a company develops a software application. This author writes 'Copyright 2006 Company name' on one line and 'Copyright 2006 Author name' on the next line of each source file. Each source file references the GPL v2, and a 'license.txt' file states that the GPL v2 applies. He made the copyright and license decisions himself, after asking his boss for directions and receiving no response. Software operation ------------------ The source files were stored in a company internal CVS repository where ten other coworkers had access. The author compiled the source files and copied the resulting binaries to several company owned computers for testing and then for production use. Current situation ----------------- The author was layed off and is now unemployed. Because he wrote some of the sofware from home, he still has access to the source files. He has no documents that previously authorized him to place copyright notices in the software or place the software under the GPL v2. Wish ---- The author would like to now distribute the GPL software (either source files or binaries or both.) He would like to distribute it to anybody in the world without fearing a lawsuit (copyright, licensing, intellectual property, trade secrets?) from his old company who may wish to do him harm. Questions --------- 1. The software contains one organizational 'Copyright Company name' copyright and one personal 'Copyright Author name' copyright to protect the life of the software. Who owns the software now that the author no longer works at the company? 2. Assume that due to contractual text the author does not own the software and rather the company owns it entirely. May the author distribute the software now anyways? 3. It seems that the key to answering #2 is determining if the software was 'distributed' under the terms of the GPL v2. How can the author know if the software he wrote was 'distributed'? 4. If it comes to a civil lawsuit in the U.S. or europe, which party has the burden of proving the other party wrong? 5. Is there any chance of a criminal lawsuit in the U.S. or europe if the author distributes the software? From armijn at uulug.nl Mon Dec 29 21:15:44 2008 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:15:44 +0100 Subject: Unsure of GPL privilege to distribute In-Reply-To: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> References: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> Message-ID: <1230581745.3107.14.camel@cletus.local> hi Stephan, > What is the proper place to ask basic legal questions regarding > GPL licensing and Copyright ownership for software in europe? Freedom Task Force: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/ armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From hendrik at enyo.de Tue Dec 30 10:48:03 2008 From: hendrik at enyo.de (Hendrik Weimer) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:48:03 +0100 Subject: Unsure of GPL privilege to distribute In-Reply-To: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> (Stephan's message of "Mon\, 29 Dec 2008 17\:42\:59 +0100") References: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> Message-ID: <86abae6lkc.fsf@mid.gienah.enyo.de> Stephan writes: > 1. The software contains one organizational 'Copyright Company name' > copyright and one personal 'Copyright Author name' copyright to > protect the life of the software. Who owns the software now that > the author no longer works at the company? This depends a lot on the jurisdiction and the concrete details. In Germany the employer own the rights to the code if the work was created as part of his regular duties. If the author created the software during his free time, he is the sole owner. > 2. Assume that due to contractual text the author does not own > the software and rather the company owns it entirely. May > the author distribute the software now anyways? No. Unless he has a written statement (apart from the code, which he added himself) that the software is actually GPLed. > 3. It seems that the key to answering #2 is determining if the > software was 'distributed' under the terms of the GPL v2. How > can the author know if the software he wrote was 'distributed'? I don't think that matters. Taking some code and calling it GPLed does not make it such. > 4. If it comes to a civil lawsuit in the U.S. or europe, which > party has the burden of proving the other party wrong? Again this depends a lot on the jurisdiction. If the company files a lawsuit then it will probably argue that he wasn't authorized to add the GPL notices. Then, he would have to prove that this isn't true or does not apply for some reason. > 5. Is there any chance of a criminal lawsuit in the U.S. or europe > if the author distributes the software? Probably not. Criminal charges usually require a willful infringement. In this case this seems rather doubtful, however, obtaining advice on a mailing list might lead to the contrary. :-/ HTH, Hendrik From joseph at heenan.me.uk Tue Dec 30 12:29:26 2008 From: joseph at heenan.me.uk (Joseph Heenan) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:29:26 +0000 Subject: Unsure of GPL privilege to distribute In-Reply-To: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> References: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> Message-ID: <495A0616.5020408@heenan.me.uk> Hendrik has already given you some good answers, but let me add my piece. Note: I am not a lawyer. I have some awareness of UK law and experience of licensing, but that may not be applicable in your case. Stephan wrote: > Original situation > ------------------ > A software engineer (author) who works at a company develops a software > application. This author writes 'Copyright 2006 Company name' on one > line and 'Copyright 2006 Author name' on the next line of each source > file. Each source file references the GPL v2, and a 'license.txt' file > states that the GPL v2 applies. He made the copyright and license > decisions himself, after asking his boss for directions and receiving > no response. Assuming the author had a contract that involved him writing software and it was done in work hours (unless there was an explicit statement to the contrary) then you are quite safe to assume that the company owns the copyright and the author has no rights to the code. As for the GPL license, unless there was an explicit statement by the company that the code was to be developed as open source software, then I would doubt that the author had the authority to license the code under the GPL. Without an indications to the company, management at the company are likely to expect that any code written for them is owned by them and not to be distributed unless they authorise. (I am assuming the software was not based on any existing GPL works.) > Software operation > ------------------ > The source files were stored in a company internal CVS repository > where ten other coworkers had access. The author compiled the source > files and copied the resulting binaries to several company owned > computers for testing and then for production use. That does not count as distribution. Only if it was *legally* made available to someone who was not an employee/contractor of the company would it be distribution. > Current situation > ----------------- > The author was layed off and is now unemployed. Because he wrote some > of the sofware from home, he still has access to the source files. He > has no documents that previously authorized him to place copyright > notices in the software or place the software under the GPL v2. Was he authorised and doesn't have the documents? > Questions > --------- > 1. The software contains one organizational 'Copyright Company name' > copyright and one personal 'Copyright Author name' copyright to > protect the life of the software. Who owns the software now that > the author no longer works at the company? As above, unless their was some indication to the contrary, the company always 100% owned the software. > 2. Assume that due to contractual text the author does not own > the software and rather the company owns it entirely. May > the author distribute the software now anyways? No, not without authorisation from the copyright holder (the company). > 3. It seems that the key to answering #2 is determining if the > software was 'distributed' under the terms of the GPL v2. How > can the author know if the software he wrote was 'distributed'? Assuming the situation I outlined above, the author really has little in the way of rights. If any third parties (not employees or subcontractors of the company) received the software under the GPL license, they could return a copy to the author under the GPL. > 4. If it comes to a civil lawsuit in the U.S. or europe, which > party has the burden of proving the other party wrong? I don't know the answer for sure. I'd suggest any professional software developer probably wants to avoid any situation where he's accused of this kind of thing. > 5. Is there any chance of a criminal lawsuit in the U.S. or europe > if the author distributes the software? Pass. Joseph From gplviol at encambio.com Tue Dec 30 15:54:22 2008 From: gplviol at encambio.com (Stephan) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:54:22 +0100 Subject: Unsure of GPL privilege to distribute In-Reply-To: <495A0616.5020408@heenan.me.uk> References: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> <495A0616.5020408@heenan.me.uk> Message-ID: <20081230145422.GA26526@debut.europalab.com> Hello Joseph, An mar., d?c 30, 2008, Joseph HEENAN schrieb: >Hendrik has already given you some good answers, but let me add my piece. > He told me to try the FSF mailing list, which is good advice. >Note: I am not a lawyer. I have some awareness of UK law and experience >of licensing, but that may not be applicable in your case. > >Stephan wrote: >>Original situation >>------------------ >>A software engineer (author) who works at a company develops a software >>application. This author writes 'Copyright 2006 Company name' on one >>line and 'Copyright 2006 Author name' on the next line of each source >>file. Each source file references the GPL v2, and a 'license.txt' file >>states that the GPL v2 applies. He made the copyright and license >>decisions himself, after asking his boss for directions and receiving >>no response. > >Assuming the author had a contract that involved him writing software >and it was done in work hours (unless there was an explicit statement to >the contrary) then you are quite safe to assume that the company owns >the copyright and the author has no rights to the code. > Okay. >As for the GPL license, unless there was an explicit statement by the >company that the code was to be developed as open source software, then >I would doubt that the author had the authority to license the code >under the GPL. Without an indications to the company, management at the >company are likely to expect that any code written for them is owned by >them and not to be distributed unless they authorise. > Alas, there is no explicit statement by the company. The only manager who could have done so (we talked about it) was not competent enough to understand licenses, so I made the decision myself. >(I am assuming the software was not based on any existing GPL works.) > Your assumption is correct, the software is based on BSD licensed libraries and not GPL licensed ones. >>Software operation >>------------------ >>The source files were stored in a company internal CVS repository >>where ten other coworkers had access. The author compiled the source >>files and copied the resulting binaries to several company owned >>computers for testing and then for production use. > >That does not count as distribution. Only if it was *legally* made >available to someone who was not an employee/contractor of the company >would it be distribution. > >>Current situation >>----------------- >>The author was layed off and is now unemployed. Because he wrote some >>of the sofware from home, he still has access to the source files. He >>has no documents that previously authorized him to place copyright >>notices in the software or place the software under the GPL v2. > >Was he authorised and doesn't have the documents? > If the gounds for authorization (a not so competent manager giving the goahead) are met, it was done so by speaking and not written. >>Questions >>--------- >>1. The software contains one organizational 'Copyright Company name' >> copyright and one personal 'Copyright Author name' copyright to >> protect the life of the software. Who owns the software now that >> the author no longer works at the company? > >As above, unless their was some indication to the contrary, the company >always 100% owned the software. > >>2. Assume that due to contractual text the author does not own >> the software and rather the company owns it entirely. May >> the author distribute the software now anyways? > >No, not without authorisation from the copyright holder (the company). > >>3. It seems that the key to answering #2 is determining if the >> software was 'distributed' under the terms of the GPL v2. How >> can the author know if the software he wrote was 'distributed'? > >Assuming the situation I outlined above, the author really has little in >the way of rights. If any third parties (not employees or subcontractors >of the company) received the software under the GPL license, they could >return a copy to the author under the GPL. > That is an interesting idea, an author receiving his own authored software from a third party and thereby increasing his rights. >>4. If it comes to a civil lawsuit in the U.S. or europe, which >> party has the burden of proving the other party wrong? > >I don't know the answer for sure. I'd suggest any professional software >developer probably wants to avoid any situation where he's accused of >this kind of thing. > >>5. Is there any chance of a criminal lawsuit in the U.S. or europe >> if the author distributes the software? > >Pass. > It sounds as if my fear is confirmed, one which was explained to me by professors and previous bosses. Don't let software you write die, instead license it freely. Although this advice was taken and carried out with good intentions, it seems that the software will now indeed die. The author is the only one with interest in maintaining and distributing the software, but doesn't have the privileges to do so. Thanks for your advice. Regards, Stephan From matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu Tue Dec 30 22:54:10 2008 From: matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu (Matthew Flaschen) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:54:10 -0500 Subject: Unsure of GPL privilege to distribute In-Reply-To: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> References: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> Message-ID: <495A9882.7040904@gatech.edu> Stephan wrote: > --------- > 1. The software contains one organizational 'Copyright Company name' > copyright and one personal 'Copyright Author name' copyright to > protect the life of the software. Who owns the software now that > the author no longer works at the company? IANAL, but most likely the company, as a work for hire. > 2. Assume that due to contractual text the author does not own > the software and rather the company owns it entirely. May > the author distribute the software now anyways? Only if the company gave permission to distribute it under the GPL. > 3. It seems that the key to answering #2 is determining if the > software was 'distributed' under the terms of the GPL v2. How > can the author know if the software he wrote was 'distributed'? Even if some employee distributed it, that doesn't mean the company necessarily consented to put the software under the GPL. > 5. Is there any chance of a criminal lawsuit in the U.S. or europe > if the author distributes the software? I think you mean a civil lawsuit, and yes. Matt Flaschen From gplviol at encambio.com Wed Dec 31 12:58:20 2008 From: gplviol at encambio.com (Stephan) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:58:20 +0100 Subject: Unsure of GPL privilege to distribute In-Reply-To: <495A9882.7040904@gatech.edu> References: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> <495A9882.7040904@gatech.edu> Message-ID: <20081231115820.GB2453@debut.europalab.com> Hello list, Matthew FLASCHEN wrote: >Stephan wrote: >> 1. The software contains one organizational 'Copyright Company name' >> copyright and one personal 'Copyright Author name' copyright to >> protect the life of the software. Who owns the software now that >> the author no longer works at the company? >> >IANAL, but most likely the company, as a work for hire. > >> 2. Assume that due to contractual text the author does not own >> the software and rather the company owns it entirely. May >> the author distribute the software now anyways? >> >Only if the company gave permission to distribute it under the GPL. > >> 3. It seems that the key to answering #2 is determining if the >> software was 'distributed' under the terms of the GPL v2. How >> can the author know if the software he wrote was 'distributed'? >> >Even if some employee distributed it, that doesn't mean the company >necessarily consented to put the software under the GPL. > >> 5. Is there any chance of a criminal lawsuit in the U.S. or europe >> if the author distributes the software? >> >I think you mean a civil lawsuit, and yes. > Even though it seems the topic I posted belongs in another list, you've all very generously helped out. Thanks go to Joseph, Matthew. and Hendrik, who I mistakenly disregarded his answers. Sorry Hendrik. I'm smarter now and will be careful to always base future software on at least one GPL library to force GPL conveyance. I think that's the lesson learned, although the distribution issue remains a sticking point in promoting software freedom. Regards, Stephan