From mhennig at astaro.com Tue Sep 2 10:36:32 2008 From: mhennig at astaro.com (Markus Hennig) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 01:36:32 -0700 Subject: ASTARO not making sources available Message-ID: <13A7D16E6BC8794CB20DF8218B944BB20C63F639@dhost002-54.dex002.intermedia.net> Hi all, I have to apologize for the complete wrong answer from our support team. I corrected this mistake immediately, but unfortunately my email didn't make it to this list (see email below). Of course do we have a written offer to send everybody our open source components on CD and we also have a download section for all open source components: "http://download.astaro.de/GPL%20Source%20Code/" - not really difficult to find... We invest a lot of time, resources and money to support the open source community, just read careful Haralds blog (http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/) or check the "Who wrote 2.6.xx" sections from LWN: Astaro is almost every time in the top-20, even sometimes in the top-10. Astaro hosted last year the Netfilter Workshop (http://workshop.netfilter.org/2007/) and sponsors it this year again (http://workshop.netfilter.org/2008/Astaro.html) as we did the last years. Besides all the well know software projects we sponsor or contributing code to, we also support conferences, WIKIs, tools like Firebug or creative commons projects like VEB FILM Leipzig (http://www.vebfilm.net/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/lang,en/ ). So its more or less ridiculous to suspect we are not committed to the Open Source community or violating any of their license. But Armijn you are right and we will train the support teams for GPL related questions again. And David, we don't use Busybox, but feel free to contact the FSF. In the early days we sponsored them too (which is now a big-money game with fancy logos in categories and sub-categories...). So if something is still not explained or open, please don't hesitate to send me an email! Regards, Markus > -----Original Message----- > From: Markus Hennig > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:17 PM > To: dia_tn at yahoo.fr > Subject: sources for opensource code in astaro firewall > > Hi Dia, > > looks like there is a minor misunderstanding and > communication problem. > We publish of course all open source parts of our product > ASG, including the modification and patches we applied. > You can download these under "http://download.astaro.de/GPL > Source Code/", we will update the file list there within next > days for our latest version ASG 7.300. > > We do not publish our own proprietary code, which is for > example the WebAdmin or the Middleware. None of them includes > Open Source parts or incorporates other software parts with > licenses which would require a publishing. > > > Hope this helps and clarifies the situation. > Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have further questions, > > Markus Markus Hennig Astaro AG CTO Telephone: + 49 721 25516 0 Amalienbadstrasse 36, Bau 33a 76227 Karlsruhe Germany Jabber:mhennig at jabber.astaro.com Skype:mhennig GPG-Key on hkp://random.sks.keyserver.penguin.de EFC1 436B E930 14C1 60B1 B795 CD7C A519 8193 1A44 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 1469 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20080902/26d2dd2b/attachment.bin From twaffle at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 13:53:33 2008 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:53:33 -0400 Subject: ASTARO not making sources available In-Reply-To: <13A7D16E6BC8794CB20DF8218B944BB20C63F639@dhost002-54.dex002.intermedia.net> References: <13A7D16E6BC8794CB20DF8218B944BB20C63F639@dhost002-54.dex002.intermedia.net> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80809020453w575a957fm1cc039675d124d27@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Markus Hennig wrote: > Hi all, > > I have to apologize for the complete wrong answer from our support team. > I corrected this mistake immediately, but unfortunately my email didn't > make it to this list (see email below). > > Of course do we have a written offer to send everybody our open source > components on CD and we also have a download section for all open source > components: "http://download.astaro.de/GPL%20Source%20Code/" - not > really difficult to find... Markus, might I suggest that you ensure there is a link to that page? Personally, I searched the web, and I searched your web site, and the only links I found where articles such as this which quite literally bragged regarding the support of open source. Go to your own web site, and do a simple search for 'GPL'. See what you find. > Besides all the well know software projects we sponsor or contributing > code to, we also support conferences, WIKIs, tools like Firebug or > creative commons projects like VEB FILM Leipzig > (http://www.vebfilm.net/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/lang,en/ > ). > So its more or less ridiculous to suspect we are not committed to the > Open Source community or violating any of their license. But Armijn you > are right and we will train the support teams for GPL related questions > again. And David, we don't use Busybox, but feel free to contact the > FSF. In the early days we sponsored them too (which is now a big-money > game with fancy logos in categories and sub-categories...). > So if something is still not explained or open, please don't hesitate to > send me an email! Several people looked for it Markus. 'Not too hard to find' is something that no one was able to find. Then there is the questionable state of the ISO downloads themselves, as the version which was initially complained about was just put up two days ago. -- -- Thomas From mhennig at astaro.com Tue Sep 2 14:37:19 2008 From: mhennig at astaro.com (Markus Hennig) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 05:37:19 -0700 Subject: ASTARO not making sources available In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80809020453w575a957fm1cc039675d124d27@mail.gmail.com> References: <13A7D16E6BC8794CB20DF8218B944BB20C63F639@dhost002-54.dex002.intermedia.net> <30dfe2a80809020453w575a957fm1cc039675d124d27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <13A7D16E6BC8794CB20DF8218B944BB20C63F7E7@dhost002-54.dex002.intermedia.net> > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Charron [mailto:twaffle at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 1:54 PM > To: Markus Hennig > Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org; cdibona at gmail.com; > mrintegrity at gmail.com; dave123_aml at yahoo.com; > dia_tn at yahoo.fr; armijn at uulug.nl; joseph at heenan.me.uk > Subject: Re: ASTARO not making sources available (Encryption: None) > > Markus, might I suggest that you ensure there is a link to that > page? Personally, I searched the web, and I searched your web site, > and the only links I found where articles such as this which quite > literally bragged regarding the support of open source. > > Go to your own web site, and do a simple search for 'GPL'. > See what you find. I see, I will forward this to Marketing, in the meantime I recommend http://www.google.de/search?q=gpl+site:astaro.com > Several people looked for it Markus. 'Not too hard to find' is > something that no one was able to find. Then there is the > questionable state of the ISO downloads themselves, as the version > which was initially complained about was just put up two days ago. Yes, the ISO image 7.300 with all open source parts was released on August 28, 7 days after the binary release of 7.300 - that's just because of internal technical restrictions. Dia contacted our support initially on August 18 without mentioning a special version. So some overlapping here, but not worth to discuss. Markus -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 1469 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20080902/fc1c555b/attachment.bin From anselmolsm at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 14:33:35 2008 From: anselmolsm at gmail.com (Anselmo Lacerda S. de Melo) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:33:35 -0300 Subject: Proview BR not making sources available Message-ID: Hi all, I bought a set-top box Proview XPS-1000 last month and using the product I noticed that it uses the Links web browser, but I supose there are more GPL software under its menus (It seems to use ST Linux - http://www.stlinux.com/). I sent an e-mail on August 8 asking for the sources that still not available. I received the attendance code 26322, but I got no answer since them. I tried more 3 times (2 e-mails and 1 fone call) but still with no answer about it. Proview BR website: http://www.proviewbr.com.br If you need more information please let me know. rgds, Anselmo From loic at dachary.org Tue Sep 9 19:39:37 2008 From: loic at dachary.org (Loic Dachary) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:39:37 +0200 Subject: Harald Welte contributions to linux-2.4 Message-ID: <48C6B4D9.3070603@dachary.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, For archive purposes (and criticism if there is a mistake), here are the contributions of Harald Welte to linux-2.4 http://fsffrance.org/welte-linux-2.4.tar.gz A copy of the included README file follows: * rsync -avz --delete rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/bkcvs/linux-2.4 linux-2.4-rcs * remove all files that do not match welte * the list of files matching welte is in the FILES file * the output of rlog on each file is in RLOG ( while read file ; do rlog $file ; done < FILES > RLOG ) * in the RLOG file the commits of Harald Welte are author: laforge The first number is the line number in the RLOG file. The lines starting with RCS file: show the file name If a line following RCS file: shows date: it is the date of the contribution of Harald Welte to this file. The numbers at the end of the date: lines show the amount of code modified lines: +4 -7 means 4 lines added and 7 lines removed. 2:RCS file: linux-2.4/Documentation/crypto/api-intro.txt,v 106:RCS file: linux-2.4/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_ecn.h,v 127:RCS file: linux-2.4/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_DSCP.h,v 148:RCS file: linux-2.4/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_dscp.h,v 169:RCS file: linux-2.4/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_ttl.h,v 192:RCS file: linux-2.4/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ip_conntrack_irc.h,v 242:RCS file: linux-2.4/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_ECN.h,v 263:RCS file: linux-2.4/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_ULOG.h,v 284:RCS file: linux-2.4/MAINTAINERS,v 999:date: 2002/09/10 01:34:23; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +4 -7 1546:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/iptable_mangle.c,v 1559:date: 2004/06/23 06:43:31; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +2 -0 1568:date: 2003/04/03 15:01:10; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1 1618:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_standalone.c,v 1655:date: 2004/03/30 04:27:24; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +10 -1 1668:date: 2004/02/04 01:19:05; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +0 -4 1772:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_snmp_basic.c,v 1821:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_tftp.c,v 1834:date: 2004/04/23 19:53:22; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +7 -0 1842:date: 2003/12/02 23:16:29; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +0 -2 1858:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c,v 1938:date: 2004/06/23 06:43:31; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +2 -5 1950:date: 2004/06/15 01:02:58; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +5 -6 1981:date: 2003/10/08 17:36:59; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +14 -47 2008:date: 2003/06/26 21:19:49; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +24 -31 2041:date: 2003/03/11 23:34:22; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +5 -10 2056:date: 2002/10/14 17:04:12; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +11 -9 2124:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c,v 2153:date: 2004/06/23 06:43:31; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +10 -1 2185:date: 2003/06/26 21:19:49; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +60 -9 2256:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_helper.c,v 2269:date: 2004/06/23 06:43:31; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +8 -9 2284:date: 2004/02/04 01:19:05; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +0 -5 2309:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_DSCP.c,v 2330:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_dscp.c,v 2351:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_tftp.c,v 2364:date: 2003/12/02 23:16:29; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +0 -2 2370:date: 2003/08/26 13:38:45; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1 2386:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_helper.c,v 2424:date: 2003/10/08 17:36:59; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +4 -15 2436:date: 2003/06/26 21:19:49; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +0 -1 2484:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_ULOG.c,v 2497:date: 2004/10/26 16:57:01; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +4 -2 2510:date: 2004/08/04 04:18:31; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +9 -9 2523:date: 2003/06/26 21:19:49; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +0 -1 2529:date: 2003/01/21 21:38:01; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +4 -2 2536:date: 2002/10/03 21:37:06; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1 2540:date: 2002/09/10 01:34:23; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +18 -17 2544:date: 2002/06/03 15:51:04; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +19 -1 2562:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_irc.c,v 2604:date: 2003/07/29 13:06:40; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +13 -4 2610:date: 2003/06/26 21:19:49; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +2 -4 2619:date: 2003/04/28 02:56:56; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +0 -2 2653:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_ECN.c,v 2666:date: 2004/02/27 14:49:56; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +7 -4 2690:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_ecn.c,v 2711:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MIRROR.c,v 2759:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_ttl.c,v 2782:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_irc.c,v 2825:date: 2003/09/13 04:06:32; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1 2831:date: 2003/06/26 21:19:49; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +0 -3 2857:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6table_mangle.c,v 2894:RCS file: linux-2.4/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c,v 2942:date: 2004/06/23 06:43:31; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +10 -1 2980:date: 2003/06/26 21:19:49; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +63 -14 2989:date: 2002/10/03 21:37:06; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +3 -0 3001:date: 2002/04/11 19:51:32; author: laforge; state: Exp; lines: +13 -6 Cheers -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjGtNgACgkQ8dLMyEl6F237swCgxsVe69iH/gzHbAkGvdF3U0Z+ 7aUAoJr6gy/AbhGNZzNlwVmYeDyZwp7S =T1bh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: loic.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 276 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20080909/a523cfdb/attachment.vcf From e0126650 at student.tuwien.ac.at Sat Sep 20 04:28:33 2008 From: e0126650 at student.tuwien.ac.at (Peter Honeder) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 04:28:33 +0200 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft Message-ID: <48D45FD1.20208@student.tuwien.ac.at> Hi! This mail is sent to both legal at lists.gpl-violations.org and the rdesktop developer mailing list (rdesktop-devel at lists.sourceforge.net). I have found out that the MochaSoft RDP client for the iPhone and iPod Touch, which is distributed commercially trough the apple App Store, is based on the GPL licensed rdesktop. There is a lite version which can be downloaded for free. After syncing it to the Mac or PC with iTunes you can grep for standard rdesktop symbol names and you will find: - global rdesktop variables (starting with g_) - iso/itot layer functions (starting with iso_) - tcp layer functions - mcs layer functions - rdp layer functions In an email to Mochasoft which I wrote regarding the release of their sourcecode to the public as the GPL states, they answered that due to the difference in the platform (screen, input,...) of the iPhone they do not see this as a GPL violation. Maybe you can explain them what the GPL actually means and that both their free lite version and their commercially sold normal version have to be published in full source code and detail. Best regards, Peter From support at mochasoft.dk Mon Sep 22 15:22:30 2008 From: support at mochasoft.dk (MochaSoft) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:22:30 +0200 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft Message-ID: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> As a follow up on Peter Honeder information related to rdp for iphone: I have selected today , 22 September 2008 a) to remove the free and paid version from App Store (only place you can download the software). It can take a few hours before all App stores are updated. b) to continue working on v 2.0. I cannot tell when it is ready, but when it is released, I will also release the protocol part source code on a BSD license type, as to prevent any misunderstandings. The V 2.0 is a new source code and will have no relation with rdesktop source code. Thanks for giving advice on the GPL issue jan frydendal - Mochasoft From seventhguardian at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 16:49:54 2008 From: seventhguardian at gmail.com (Renato Caldas) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:49:54 +0100 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> Message-ID: <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM, MochaSoft wrote: > As a follow up on Peter Honeder information related > to rdp for iphone: > > > I have selected today , 22 September 2008 > > a) to remove the free and paid version from App Store (only place you > can download the software). It can take a few hours before > all App stores are updated. It is my understanding that those who have already bought the paid version are entitled to the source code. You cannot simply undo the release and hope that others would forget it. > b) to continue working on v 2.0. I cannot tell when it is ready, but > when it is released, I will also release the protocol part > source code on a BSD license type, > as to prevent any misunderstandings. > The V 2.0 is a new source code and will have no relation with rdesktop > source code. > > Thanks for giving advice on the GPL issue > > jan frydendal - Mochasoft > > Renato Caldas From mrintegrity at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 19:17:24 2008 From: mrintegrity at gmail.com (mr) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:17:24 +0200 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Renato Caldas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM, MochaSoft wrote: > > As a follow up on Peter Honeder information related > > to rdp for iphone: > > > > > > I have selected today , 22 September 2008 > > > > a) to remove the free and paid version from App Store (only place you > > can download the software). It can take a few hours before > > all App stores are updated. > > It is my understanding that those who have already bought the paid > version are entitled to the source code. You cannot simply undo the > release and hope that others would forget it. > > > b) to continue working on v 2.0. I cannot tell when it is ready, but > > when it is released, I will also release the protocol part > > source code on a BSD license type, > > as to prevent any misunderstandings. > > The V 2.0 is a new source code and will have no relation with rdesktop > > source code. > > > > Thanks for giving advice on the GPL issue > > > > jan frydendal - Mochasoft > > > > > > Actually, I'm not so sure that's the case. If you breach the terms of the licence you loose the right to use and distribute the covered software, I don't know how that applies to previous releases. It's good that your are acting on the violation however it would be better if you instead chose to support the software that has given you a free ride and you have so far been taking advantage of. A better solution to simply removing the software would be to actively support the rdesktop project, open up the code changes you made and give back to the community that provided you with a free leg up. Regards, Alan > Renato Caldas > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20080922/c34f5f27/attachment.htm From joseph at heenan.me.uk Mon Sep 22 21:30:23 2008 From: joseph at heenan.me.uk (Joseph Heenan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:30:23 +0100 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> mr wrote: > > a) to remove the free and paid version from App Store (only place you > > can download the software). It can take a few hours before > > all App stores are updated. > > It is my understanding that those who have already bought the paid > version are entitled to the source code. You cannot simply undo the > release and hope that others would forget it. > > Actually, I'm not so sure that's the case. If you breach the terms of > the licence you loose the right to use and distribute the covered > software, I don't know how that applies to previous releases. There was no licence that enabled Mochasoft to distribute the earlier versions. Effectively, it is the same action as if I sold copies of windows vista I'd made using a dvd writer. (That is, thinking about that same situation will give the many of the same answers about how this situation can be solved.) Essentially, it all comes down to an agreement between mochasoft and the copyright holder(s). The holders would be free to sue for copyright infringement. The people who bought the software have no right to ask for the source code, but I'd imagine would be within their rights to ask for a refund on the grounds that mochasoft was not able to legally sell them the software. Mochasoft could possibly avoid that be obtaining a legal license for the code, or by choosing to release the code. In cases likes this, I would imagine no one cares enough to do anything, especially given the breach has stopped, but that's really entirely up to the copyright holder(s). I believe the FSF policy (and I have no idea if any part of rdesktop is owned by the FSF or not) is to press for release of the source code, and (if they have had to use a lawyer) payment of their legal fees. Joseph From vinz.focker at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 23:13:31 2008 From: vinz.focker at gmail.com (Vinz Focker) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:13:31 +0200 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> Message-ID: <4b126e1e0809221413n68fea27axb7f64504ed7a989c@mail.gmail.com> MochaSoft's rdesktop port is only the tip of the iceberg wrt GPL Violations in the Apple App store. Regarding rdesktop: There is another quite expensive ($11.99) iPhone rdp client in the App store which is only available in the US App store and available since beginning of August and seems to sell extremely well (judging from the 270+ reviews in the App Store and the 5-star rating !) I just got the strings from the binary from a NY friend. Guess what .... rdesktop again. It even has the "rdesktop" strings inside: .rdesktop .rdesktop/cache %s/.rdesktop/%s But I'll wait before disclosing the findings or the name. The vendors should have a tiny chance to fix the issue before google reads the legal archives ... ;) Cheers, Vinz On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Joseph Heenan wrote: > mr wrote: >> >> > a) to remove the free and paid version from App Store (only place >> you >> > can download the software). It can take a few hours before >> > all App stores are updated. >> >> It is my understanding that those who have already bought the paid >> version are entitled to the source code. You cannot simply undo the >> release and hope that others would forget it. >> >> Actually, I'm not so sure that's the case. If you breach the terms of the >> licence you loose the right to use and distribute the covered software, I >> don't know how that applies to previous releases. > > There was no licence that enabled Mochasoft to distribute the earlier > versions. > > Effectively, it is the same action as if I sold copies of windows vista I'd > made using a dvd writer. (That is, thinking about that same situation will > give the many of the same answers about how this situation can be solved.) > > Essentially, it all comes down to an agreement between mochasoft and the > copyright holder(s). The holders would be free to sue for copyright > infringement. > > The people who bought the software have no right to ask for the source code, > but I'd imagine would be within their rights to ask for a refund on the > grounds that mochasoft was not able to legally sell them the software. > Mochasoft could possibly avoid that be obtaining a legal license for the > code, or by choosing to release the code. > > In cases likes this, I would imagine no one cares enough to do anything, > especially given the breach has stopped, but that's really entirely up to > the copyright holder(s). > > I believe the FSF policy (and I have no idea if any part of rdesktop is > owned by the FSF or not) is to press for release of the source code, and (if > they have had to use a lawyer) payment of their legal fees. > > Joseph > > > From e0126650 at student.tuwien.ac.at Mon Sep 22 23:50:59 2008 From: e0126650 at student.tuwien.ac.at (Peter Honeder) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:50:59 +0200 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <4b126e1e0809221413n68fea27axb7f64504ed7a989c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> <4b126e1e0809221413n68fea27axb7f64504ed7a989c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48D81343.8080901@student.tuwien.ac.at> Vinz Focker wrote: > MochaSoft's rdesktop port is only the tip of the iceberg wrt GPL > Violations in the Apple App store. you are so right, there are many applications based on samba and other open source projects. > Regarding rdesktop: There is another quite expensive ($11.99) iPhone > rdp client in the App store which is only available in the US App > store and available since beginning of August and seems to sell > extremely well (judging from the 270+ reviews in the App Store and the > 5-star rating !) > I just got the strings from the binary from a NY friend. Guess what > ... rdesktop again. > It even has the "rdesktop" strings inside: > .rdesktop > .rdesktop/cache > %s/.rdesktop/%s thats really bold, did anyone already contact the company? I wrote them an email some minutes ago. The problem I see is, that there seem to be some people earning pretty good money for the work of others. some questions arise: - What are normal legal aspects of such a situation? - is it possible for license holders to request compensation for damages in this cases? - is it possible to get compensation of damages from Apple because they are earning 30%? - is Apple also responsible for publishing the source code in this cases? (at least they do not have NDAs signed with themselves) Best regards, Peter From joseph at heenan.me.uk Tue Sep 23 00:09:45 2008 From: joseph at heenan.me.uk (Joseph Heenan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:09:45 +0100 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <48D81343.8080901@student.tuwien.ac.at> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> <4b126e1e0809221413n68fea27axb7f64504ed7a989c@mail.gmail.com> <48D81343.8080901@student.tuwien.ac.at> Message-ID: <48D817A9.5030504@heenan.me.uk> Peter Honeder wrote: > Vinz Focker wrote: >> MochaSoft's rdesktop port is only the tip of the iceberg wrt GPL >> Violations in the Apple App store. > > - What are normal legal aspects of such a situation? I think my previous email covered that. > - is it possible for license holders to request compensation for damages > in this cases? Yes. > - is it possible to get compensation of damages from Apple because they > are earning 30%? Unlikely in my opinion. It's really the original developer that is in a sticky situation. > - is Apple also responsible for publishing the source code in this > cases? (at least they do not have NDAs signed with themselves) It seems unlikely. I'd imagine there's some T&C before the developer uploads the app where the developer is required to state that they have the right to upload the application for sale, and most likely they would have to agree to indemnify Apple against any legal action related to the app. I imagine Apple would remove the app once evidence that it wasn't legal was provided. Joseph From vinz.focker at gmail.com Tue Sep 23 00:27:13 2008 From: vinz.focker at gmail.com (Vinz Focker) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:27:13 +0200 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <48D817A9.5030504@heenan.me.uk> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> <4b126e1e0809221413n68fea27axb7f64504ed7a989c@mail.gmail.com> <48D81343.8080901@student.tuwien.ac.at> <48D817A9.5030504@heenan.me.uk> Message-ID: <4b126e1e0809221527l75f6a284y7b84201639c6922d@mail.gmail.com> Yes, Apple seems to be on the safe side. I've just found a cnet post where an iPhone SDK agreement section was quoted: ----- "If Your Application includes any FOSS [free and open-source software], You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the SDK to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations." ----- This means that Apple requires the developer to make sure that no GPL or similar "FOSS" license can "infect" the stuff they sell through the app store. So IMHO this would prevent the existence (in theory as we've learned) of any GPL-licensed software in the app store ! ... at least software developed using the iPhone SDK. (... well is there another way ?) Vinz On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Joseph Heenan wrote: > Peter Honeder wrote: >> >> Vinz Focker wrote: >>> >>> MochaSoft's rdesktop port is only the tip of the iceberg wrt GPL >>> Violations in the Apple App store. >> >> - What are normal legal aspects of such a situation? > > I think my previous email covered that. > >> - is it possible for license holders to request compensation for damages >> in this cases? > > Yes. > >> - is it possible to get compensation of damages from Apple because they >> are earning 30%? > > Unlikely in my opinion. It's really the original developer that is in a > sticky situation. > >> - is Apple also responsible for publishing the source code in this cases? >> (at least they do not have NDAs signed with themselves) > > It seems unlikely. I'd imagine there's some T&C before the developer uploads > the app where the developer is required to state that they have the right to > upload the application for sale, and most likely they would have to agree to > indemnify Apple against any legal action related to the app. > > I imagine Apple would remove the app once evidence that it wasn't legal was > provided. > > Joseph > > From web2001 at worldonline.de Tue Sep 23 16:43:58 2008 From: web2001 at worldonline.de (web2001 at worldonline.de) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:43:58 +0200 Subject: Possible GPL violation by humax-digital product: "i cord HD" Message-ID: <3898.1222181038@worldonline.de> Hi, Humax Digital (http://www.humax-digital.de) is a german vendor of digital set-top-boxes (also known as receivers). One of the newer models by humax-digital (the "icord hd") uses Linux as the operating system. The Box is on the market since 12/2007 and the source code has not been released yet. The support of the company says that the decison about the release of the source code has not been made yet. But I think they must release the source code or isn't linux under the GPL? Best Regards C.Schmitt From ard-gpl at kwaak.net Wed Sep 24 14:24:48 2008 From: ard-gpl at kwaak.net (ard) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:24:48 +0200 Subject: Possible GPL violation by humax-digital product: "i cord HD" In-Reply-To: <3898.1222181038@worldonline.de> References: <3898.1222181038@worldonline.de> Message-ID: <20080924122448.GE12748@kwaak.net> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 04:43:58PM +0200, web2001 at worldonline.de wrote: > The support of the company says that the decison about the release of > the source code has not been made yet. > But I think they must release the source code or isn't linux under the GPL? Well, they did something wrong: They should have decided whether or not they would use software licensed under GPL before starting to design the box. Because the moment they decided to use linux, they actually decided that they *will* ship source code with any modifications that were necessary to run the software on that box. By not releasing the source code (not abiding to the license they got actually means they have no license), they have no right to distribute the software, hence they sell you illegally software, as if they were selling you illegal copies of microsoft XP. In other terms: it makes them a software pirate with commercial interest. The distribution of the binaries should be accompanied by the source code, or a waiver for the source code or instructions how to get the source code from the interwebs for the next 3 years. Distribution of binaries can be done by selling the box, or just deliver a firmware upgrade on the site.