From allan.hardy at lmco.com Mon Apr 6 22:20:14 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:20:14 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Google has a package called GWT, Google Web Toolkit http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ The binary distribution includes LGPL programs such as JFreeChart and WebKit 418.9 They do not provide source They do not provide an offer All they do is provide a link to the JFreeChart website This is not, as I understand it, an acceptable method of fulfilling source code obligations How does one go about raising awareness with Google on this? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090406/436af78c/attachment.htm From cdibona at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 22:43:18 2009 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:43:18 -0700 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> I have my guy looking at it now (run open source at google, saw your post on the list). Will respond once I know more. I remember clearing an earlier version of GWT, so I'm not stressing about it, yet :-) Chris On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > > > Google has a package called GWT, Google Web Toolkit > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ > > > > The binary distribution includes LGPL programs such as JFreeChart and WebKit > 418.9 > > They do not provide source > > They do not provide an offer > > > > All they do is provide a link to the JFreeChart website > > > > This is not, as I understand it, an acceptable method of fulfilling source > code obligations > > > > How does one go about raising awareness with Google on this? -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com From cdibona at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 22:47:41 2009 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:47:41 -0700 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> Seem we're fine, from Danny: Google satisfies it's obligatins under the LGPL by section 6: " 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things: ... # # b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with. " There is simply no requirement that we offer the source directly or an offer for source. (Note it says "one of these things". not "all of these things"). Thanks for the heads up, maybe we'll tune the docs to make it more clear how others can comply with the license. Chris On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Chris DiBona wrote: > I have my guy looking at it now (run open source at google, saw your > post on the list). Will respond once I know more. I remember clearing > an earlier version of GWT, so I'm not stressing about it, yet :-) > > Chris > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: >> >> >> Google has a package called GWT, Google Web Toolkit >> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >> >> >> >> The binary distribution includes LGPL programs such as JFreeChart and WebKit >> 418.9 >> >> They do not provide source >> >> They do not provide an offer >> >> >> >> All they do is provide a link to the JFreeChart website >> >> >> >> This is not, as I understand it, an acceptable method of fulfilling source >> code obligations >> >> >> >> How does one go about raising awareness with Google on this? > > > > -- > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com > Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com From cdibona at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 23:17:14 2009 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:17:14 -0700 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <7d9492d90904061417n5123668dkfab85de988e54787@mail.gmail.com> I'll let danny respond, since he's cc'd on this. I know a few people at LMCO, which site are you at? (actually, we can take the chit-chat off list if you like..) Chris On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > Hi Chris > > That was quick, thanks for responding. > > I sorta do this for a living for my company, a very large defense > contractor, F/OSS advocacy/evangelize and set policy/permissions to use. > > So I hope your wrong and I'm right or I really don't know my stuff :) > > The requirement I speak of is in LGPL Section 3, which I copied below. > LGPL and GPL is pretty much the same - provide the source with binaries > or make an offer. > > You can't fullfill this by pointing to JFreeChart's or any other 3rd > party site, unless you have aocntreact with them to make the source > available on your behalf for 3 years. > > Not providing source has had some legal suites and other actions in the > past years so it's a point of sensitivity. > > So perhaps I don't understand GWT and the JFreeChart inclusion, but if > your including JFreeChart Binaries I don't see how you get around > Section 3 and the need for source? > > Allan > > > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > > ? ?a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable > ? ?source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections > ? ?1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; > or, > > ? ?b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three > ? ?years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your > ? ?cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete > ? ?machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be > ? ?distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium > ? ?customarily used for software interchange; or, > > ? ?c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer > ? ?to distribute corresponding source code. ?(This alternative is > ? ?allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you > ? ?received the program in object code or executable form with such > ? ?an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:48 PM > To: Hardy, Allan > Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org; Daniel Berlin > Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > Seem we're fine, from Danny: > > Google satisfies it's obligatins under the LGPL by section 6: > " > 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link > a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work > containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under > terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of > the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for > debugging such modifications. > > You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the > Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by > this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work > during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the > copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference > directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one > of these things: > > ... > # > # b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the > Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy > of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather > than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will > operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user > installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible > with the version that the work was made with. > > " > There is simply no requirement that we offer the source directly or an > offer for source. > > (Note it says "one of these things". not "all of these things"). > > Thanks for the heads up, maybe we'll tune the docs to make it more > clear how others can comply with the license. > > Chris > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Chris DiBona wrote: >> I have my guy looking at it now (run open source at google, saw your >> post on the list). Will respond once I know more. I remember clearing >> an earlier version of GWT, so I'm not stressing about it, yet :-) >> >> Chris >> >> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Hardy, Allan > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Google has a package called GWT, Google Web Toolkit >>> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >>> >>> >>> >>> The binary distribution includes LGPL programs such as JFreeChart and > WebKit >>> 418.9 >>> >>> They do not provide source >>> >>> They do not provide an offer >>> >>> >>> >>> All they do is provide a link to the JFreeChart website >>> >>> >>> >>> This is not, as I understand it, an acceptable method of fulfilling > source >>> code obligations >>> >>> >>> >>> How does one go about raising awareness with Google on this? >> >> >> >> -- >> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. >> Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com >> Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com >> > > > > -- > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com > Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com From allan.hardy at lmco.com Mon Apr 6 23:56:15 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:56:15 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Hi, Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too old in haste The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 I copied it below So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary distribution or not? The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT, Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a shared library that kind of thing. But GWT Seems to include the source, not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? Only 6b or 6e are going to get you out of having to provide source. You may have the workings of an Offer by saying its available with the source at: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/#svn/tools/red ist/ Though one could argue that SVN requirement doesn't make the source available in the same way the binary was. What started me on this was the Copying file doesn't say go to Google... for the source, it says go to JFreeChart Allan 4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange. If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:32 PM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > Hi Chris > > That was quick, thanks for responding. > > I sorta do this for a living for my company, a very large defense > contractor, F/OSS advocacy/evangelize and set policy/permissions to use. > > So I hope your wrong and I'm right or I really don't know my stuff :) > > The requirement I speak of is in LGPL Section 3, which I copied below. > LGPL and GPL is pretty much the same - provide the source with binaries > or make an offer. > First, you seem to be referencing some really old version of the LGPL. LGPL v2.1 (which is what the libraries you are talking about are under) has this as section 3: " 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices. " http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt I'd love to know where you are copying section 3 from, so we can get on the same page :) ... > provide the source with binaries or make an offer. First, the source to all version of stuff used with gwt is available in the source distribution. http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/#svn/tools/red ist/ For the binary distributions of GWT, GWT itself is known as a "work that uses the library". Section 5 covers what happens with these: " 5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables. " Section 6 is as I quoted before, and only requires you use a linking mechanism that allows replacement of the library, which we do. From allan.hardy at lmco.com Mon Apr 6 23:14:50 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:14:50 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Hi Chris That was quick, thanks for responding. I sorta do this for a living for my company, a very large defense contractor, F/OSS advocacy/evangelize and set policy/permissions to use. So I hope your wrong and I'm right or I really don't know my stuff :) The requirement I speak of is in LGPL Section 3, which I copied below. LGPL and GPL is pretty much the same - provide the source with binaries or make an offer. You can't fullfill this by pointing to JFreeChart's or any other 3rd party site, unless you have aocntreact with them to make the source available on your behalf for 3 years. Not providing source has had some legal suites and other actions in the past years so it's a point of sensitivity. So perhaps I don't understand GWT and the JFreeChart inclusion, but if your including JFreeChart Binaries I don't see how you get around Section 3 and the need for source? Allan 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) -----Original Message----- From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:48 PM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org; Daniel Berlin Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Seem we're fine, from Danny: Google satisfies it's obligatins under the LGPL by section 6: " 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things: ... # # b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with. " There is simply no requirement that we offer the source directly or an offer for source. (Note it says "one of these things". not "all of these things"). Thanks for the heads up, maybe we'll tune the docs to make it more clear how others can comply with the license. Chris On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Chris DiBona wrote: > I have my guy looking at it now (run open source at google, saw your > post on the list). Will respond once I know more. I remember clearing > an earlier version of GWT, so I'm not stressing about it, yet :-) > > Chris > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: >> >> >> Google has a package called GWT, Google Web Toolkit >> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ >> >> >> >> The binary distribution includes LGPL programs such as JFreeChart and WebKit >> 418.9 >> >> They do not provide source >> >> They do not provide an offer >> >> >> >> All they do is provide a link to the JFreeChart website >> >> >> >> This is not, as I understand it, an acceptable method of fulfilling source >> code obligations >> >> >> >> How does one go about raising awareness with Google on this? > > > > -- > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com > Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 01:29:00 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:29:00 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> > So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary distribution or not? >> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the licensing file. Well geez, why didn't you just say the GWT Licensing documentation was in error? Would have saved me and users in my company lots of time. So under 6b, JFreeChart is not shipped with GWT and is a 'pre-requisite' or expected to be acquired and downloaded/installed by the customer and GWT will use it if it is there kind of thing. I hope 1.6 cleans up such an error and calls out JFreeChart as a pre-requisite before its productions release. >> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this is a commonly understood section. >> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... Meet my viewpoint? As In I am wrong and your right? Wow now were getting a bit uppity. Yeah well I'm well aware of the requirements and law as well so I'd really appreciate it if instead of just claiming I'm wrong and your right, you'd take a second to explain. It will lead to a much more educated world. Just to be clear my whole point is that: If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. Period. I am not talking about shipping a work that uses the LGPL product, but of shipping the LGPL product itself. (which is what GWT documentation led me to believe you were doing) There is nothing in 6 that alleviates this requirement as I see it and I await your considered input. Again, thanks for clearing up that the GWT licensing documentation is in error, I can make life easier for several request I have to use the product. Allan -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:40 PM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > Hi, > > Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too old > in haste > The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 I copied it below > > So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary > distribution or not? Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the licensing file. > > The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT > distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this is a commonly understood section. But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... > > Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a > shared library that kind of thing. But GWT Seems to include the source, > not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own This has no bearing on whether that section applies. > > Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? Only 6b or 6e are going to get you > out of having to provide source. 6b. I am quite aware of the requirements of the LGPL. I contribute code to a number of GNU projects, besides being a lawyer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090406/b566a3a7/attachment.htm From cdibona at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 02:49:18 2009 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:49:18 -0700 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> Okay, I think this is now pretty unproductive. We are in compliance to my satisfaction, if you'd like to bring this up formally, I'm confident that we are doing the right thing here both by the letter and the spiritually. Chris DiBona On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: >> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary distribution >> or not? > >>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the licensing >>> file. > > > > Well geez, why didn?t you just say the GWT Licensing documentation was in > error?? Would have saved me and users in my company lots of time. > > > > So under 6b, JFreeChart is not shipped with GWT and is a 'pre-requisite' or > expected to be acquired and downloaded/installed by the customer and GWT > will use it if it is there kind of thing. > > > > I hope 1.6 cleans up such an error and calls out JFreeChart as a > pre-requisite before its productions release. > > > > > >>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this is >>> a commonly understood section. > >>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... > > > > Meet my viewpoint?? As In I am wrong and your right?? Wow now were getting a > bit uppity. > > > > Yeah well I'm well aware of the requirements and law as well so I'd really > appreciate it if instead of just claiming I'm wrong and your right, you'd > take a second to explain.? It will lead to a much more educated world. > > > > Just to be clear my whole point is that: > > If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. > Period. > > > > I am not talking about shipping a work that uses the LGPL product, but of > shipping the LGPL product itself. > > (which is what GWT documentation led me to believe you were doing) > > > > There is nothing in 6 that alleviates this requirement as I see it and I > await your considered input. > > > > > > Again, thanks for clearing up that the GWT licensing documentation is in > error, I can make life easier for several request I have to use the product. > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:40 PM > To: Hardy, Allan > Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too old > >> in haste > >> The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 ?I copied it below > >> > >> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary > >> distribution or not? > > Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. > > It was never removed the licensing file. > > > >> > >> The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT > >> distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT > > I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this > > is a commonly understood section. > > But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... > > > >> > >> Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a > >> shared library that kind of thing. ?But GWT Seems to include the source, > >> not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own > > > > This has no bearing on whether that section applies. > >> > >> Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? ?Only 6b or 6e are going to get you > >> out of having to provide source. > > > > 6b. > > I am quite aware of the requirements of the LGPL. I contribute code to > > a number of GNU projects, besides being a lawyer. -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 04:15:08 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:15:08 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> To the extent that no LGPL products are bundled into the GTW binary I agree you are in compliance The license information in the distribution doesn't seem to reflect the current packaging and licensing. So license compliance aside, it could be helpful if that is reviewed an updated. If however if LGPL products are bundled into the binary distribution I am not sure if we are in agreement. If this were the case I would seek further discussion and whatever formal routes where appropriate. I do appreciate the quick response to this. Allan Hardy -----Original Message----- From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:49 PM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Okay, I think this is now pretty unproductive. We are in compliance to my satisfaction, if you'd like to bring this up formally, I'm confident that we are doing the right thing here both by the letter and the spiritually. Chris DiBona On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: >> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary distribution >> or not? > >>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the licensing >>> file. > > > > Well geez, why didn't you just say the GWT Licensing documentation was in > error?? Would have saved me and users in my company lots of time. > > > > So under 6b, JFreeChart is not shipped with GWT and is a 'pre-requisite' or > expected to be acquired and downloaded/installed by the customer and GWT > will use it if it is there kind of thing. > > > > I hope 1.6 cleans up such an error and calls out JFreeChart as a > pre-requisite before its productions release. > > > > > >>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this is >>> a commonly understood section. > >>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... > > > > Meet my viewpoint?? As In I am wrong and your right?? Wow now were getting a > bit uppity. > > > > Yeah well I'm well aware of the requirements and law as well so I'd really > appreciate it if instead of just claiming I'm wrong and your right, you'd > take a second to explain.? It will lead to a much more educated world. > > > > Just to be clear my whole point is that: > > If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. > Period. > > > > I am not talking about shipping a work that uses the LGPL product, but of > shipping the LGPL product itself. > > (which is what GWT documentation led me to believe you were doing) > > > > There is nothing in 6 that alleviates this requirement as I see it and I > await your considered input. > > > > > > Again, thanks for clearing up that the GWT licensing documentation is in > error, I can make life easier for several request I have to use the product. > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:40 PM > To: Hardy, Allan > Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too old > >> in haste > >> The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 ?I copied it below > >> > >> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary > >> distribution or not? > > Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. > > It was never removed the licensing file. > > > >> > >> The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT > >> distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT > > I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this > > is a commonly understood section. > > But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... > > > >> > >> Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a > >> shared library that kind of thing. ?But GWT Seems to include the source, > >> not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own > > > > This has no bearing on whether that section applies. > >> > >> Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? ?Only 6b or 6e are going to get you > >> out of having to provide source. > > > > 6b. > > I am quite aware of the requirements of the LGPL. I contribute code to > > a number of GNU projects, besides being a lawyer. -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com From klas at skogmar.com Tue Apr 7 08:08:23 2009 From: klas at skogmar.com (Klas Skogmar) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:08:23 +0200 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> Hardy,what is your motivation behind all this? Are you working at the procurement department, trying to ensure open source compliance for your company? That is all fine, but you are ranting a bit without addressing the actual points that Google are making in this case: "If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. Period." That was not very constructive - was it? Especially not since they had referred to section 5 in their previous mail, stating that GWT was "work that uses the library". Right? Regards, /Klas 2009/4/7 Hardy, Allan > To the extent that no LGPL products are bundled into the GTW binary I agree > you are in compliance > > The license information in the distribution doesn't seem to reflect the > current packaging and licensing. > So license compliance aside, it could be helpful if that is reviewed an > updated. > > If however if LGPL products are bundled into the binary distribution I am > not sure if we are in agreement. If this were the case I would seek further > discussion and whatever formal routes where appropriate. > > I do appreciate the quick response to this. > > Allan Hardy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:49 PM > To: Hardy, Allan > Cc: Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > Okay, I think this is now pretty unproductive. We are in compliance > to my satisfaction, if you'd like to bring this up formally, I'm > confident that we are doing the right thing here both by the letter > and the spiritually. > > Chris DiBona > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > >> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary > distribution > >> or not? > > > >>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the licensing > >>> file. > > > > > > > > Well geez, why didn't you just say the GWT Licensing documentation was in > > error? Would have saved me and users in my company lots of time. > > > > > > > > So under 6b, JFreeChart is not shipped with GWT and is a 'pre-requisite' > or > > expected to be acquired and downloaded/installed by the customer and GWT > > will use it if it is there kind of thing. > > > > > > > > I hope 1.6 cleans up such an error and calls out JFreeChart as a > > pre-requisite before its productions release. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this > is > >>> a commonly understood section. > > > >>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... > > > > > > > > Meet my viewpoint? As In I am wrong and your right? Wow now were > getting a > > bit uppity. > > > > > > > > Yeah well I'm well aware of the requirements and law as well so I'd > really > > appreciate it if instead of just claiming I'm wrong and your right, you'd > > take a second to explain. It will lead to a much more educated world. > > > > > > > > Just to be clear my whole point is that: > > > > If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. > > Period. > > > > > > > > I am not talking about shipping a work that uses the LGPL product, but of > > shipping the LGPL product itself. > > > > (which is what GWT documentation led me to believe you were doing) > > > > > > > > There is nothing in 6 that alleviates this requirement as I see it and I > > await your considered input. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, thanks for clearing up that the GWT licensing documentation is in > > error, I can make life easier for several request I have to use the > product. > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:40 PM > > To: Hardy, Allan > > Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > > Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Hardy, Allan > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too old > > > >> in haste > > > >> The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 I copied it below > > > >> > > > >> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary > > > >> distribution or not? > > > > Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. > > > > It was never removed the licensing file. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT > > > >> distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT > > > > I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this > > > > is a commonly understood section. > > > > But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a > > > >> shared library that kind of thing. But GWT Seems to include the source, > > > >> not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own > > > > > > > > This has no bearing on whether that section applies. > > > >> > > > >> Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? Only 6b or 6e are going to get you > > > >> out of having to provide source. > > > > > > > > 6b. > > > > I am quite aware of the requirements of the LGPL. I contribute code to > > > > a number of GNU projects, besides being a lawyer. > > > > -- > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com > Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090407/559c48d8/attachment-0001.htm From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 09:25:02 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:25:02 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Klas, Yes I'm concerned with being compliant as re-distributor of OSS, and in this case GWT. >> not since they had referred to section 5 in their previous mail, stating that GWT was "work that uses the library". Right? No not at all. You can have a work-that-use-the-library AND also bundle in the LGPL Binary. They are not mutually exclusive. Google posted here that were a 'work that uses', they also have documentation that says they bundle in the LGPL product binary with their work. I just assumed both were true and hence it did not alleviate my concern. So again - If you package in the LGPL library as a binary with that work, you have to provide source for the library. Basic Summary: GWT has a license file 'Copying' that states JFreeChart is included in the binary distribution and it says to get source at JFreeChart's website This was technically incorrect, from what I understand now, the LGPL Product jFreeChart is not bundled in. The fact is Google is distributing GWT under 6b, with the expectation that JFreeChart is pre-installed/acquired separately, etc. The documentation should say this. So we are done with the confusion and I know why it happen. I'll live with Google's lawyer dissing me as a case who is off in left field. If all you care about is if GWT Compliant with LGPL, stop here. As to my basic concerns as a re-distributor of LGPL: If I re-distribute GWT with LGPL Product bundled in , I carry the same obligations as Google for source code for LGPL. (the people on this site should have no argument that re-distributors are just as liable under LGPL/GPL for source code) If they are using 6b, I can leverage that, I can re-distribute GWT with no concerns as there is no LGPL Binary included, I do assume the end customer should be told of the JFreeChart pre-requisite requirement, an issue of good documentation not license compliancy. However, IF (only if ) they had bundled in JFreeChart binaries with GWT then I stand firm on my 'understanding' If you bundle in the LGPL product binaries you are not following 6b. You have to follow 6a, 6c or 6d. My preference as a re-distributor is OSS projects use 6a as the approach, include the source for the LGPL Product in the package, at the same time. I can leverage this and when I re-distribute I can just use the entire package and my obligations are met. If they use 6c, a written offer, or even 6d, a same style access as the binaries, as a re-distributor they do me no good. I have no right to offer their offer to my customers, no control it will be in place for 3 years, etc. You cannot just point someone to 'go over there' and be compliant as a re-distributor of LGPL/GPL. Everyone knows this right? So aside from me not liking 6c as a re-distributor, it would make Google/OSS Vendor themselves compliant. Though in this particular case I would question if getting source via a SVN site and the requirements that puts on the downloader, reaches the 'same manner' requirement that the LGPL/GPL have. Just a question. Ok , so I've re-explained myself, my understanding and my motivation. Net, I don't suspect my basic understanding of this requirement is wrong and certainly don't agree I am off in left field. However, if I am way off, I am eager to be corrected and educated, here or directly to my email Allan.hardy at lmco.com From: Klas Skogmar [mailto:klas at skogmar.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:08 AM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: chris at dibona.com; Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Hardy, what is your motivation behind all this? Are you working at the procurement department, trying to ensure open source compliance for your company? That is all fine, but you are ranting a bit without addressing the actual points that Google are making in this case: "If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. Period." That was not very constructive - was it? Especially not since they had referred to section 5 in their previous mail, stating that GWT was "work that uses the library". Right? Regards, /Klas 2009/4/7 Hardy, Allan To the extent that no LGPL products are bundled into the GTW binary I agree you are in compliance The license information in the distribution doesn't seem to reflect the current packaging and licensing. So license compliance aside, it could be helpful if that is reviewed an updated. If however if LGPL products are bundled into the binary distribution I am not sure if we are in agreement. If this were the case I would seek further discussion and whatever formal routes where appropriate. I do appreciate the quick response to this. Allan Hardy -----Original Message----- From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:49 PM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Okay, I think this is now pretty unproductive. We are in compliance to my satisfaction, if you'd like to bring this up formally, I'm confident that we are doing the right thing here both by the letter and the spiritually. Chris DiBona On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: >> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary distribution >> or not? > >>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the licensing >>> file. > > > > Well geez, why didn't you just say the GWT Licensing documentation was in > error? Would have saved me and users in my company lots of time. > > > > So under 6b, JFreeChart is not shipped with GWT and is a 'pre-requisite' or > expected to be acquired and downloaded/installed by the customer and GWT > will use it if it is there kind of thing. > > > > I hope 1.6 cleans up such an error and calls out JFreeChart as a > pre-requisite before its productions release. > > > > > >>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this is >>> a commonly understood section. > >>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... > > > > Meet my viewpoint? As In I am wrong and your right? Wow now were getting a > bit uppity. > > > > Yeah well I'm well aware of the requirements and law as well so I'd really > appreciate it if instead of just claiming I'm wrong and your right, you'd > take a second to explain. It will lead to a much more educated world. > > > > Just to be clear my whole point is that: > > If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. > Period. > > > > I am not talking about shipping a work that uses the LGPL product, but of > shipping the LGPL product itself. > > (which is what GWT documentation led me to believe you were doing) > > > > There is nothing in 6 that alleviates this requirement as I see it and I > await your considered input. > > > > > > Again, thanks for clearing up that the GWT licensing documentation is in > error, I can make life easier for several request I have to use the product. > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:40 PM > To: Hardy, Allan > Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too old > >> in haste > >> The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 I copied it below > >> > >> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary > >> distribution or not? > > Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. > > It was never removed the licensing file. > > > >> > >> The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT > >> distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT > > I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this > > is a commonly understood section. > > But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... > > > >> > >> Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a > >> shared library that kind of thing. But GWT Seems to include the source, > >> not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own > > > > This has no bearing on whether that section applies. > >> > >> Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? Only 6b or 6e are going to get you > >> out of having to provide source. > > > > 6b. > > I am quite aware of the requirements of the LGPL. I contribute code to > > a number of GNU projects, besides being a lawyer. -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090407/915f8c11/attachment-0001.htm From m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk Tue Apr 7 13:01:15 2009 From: m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk (mp) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:01:15 +0100 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the wall here: In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can, whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source projects. If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law", then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal theft", or? If this is not the case, please apologise my ignorance. -martin Hardy, Allan wrote: > Klas, > > > > Yes I'm concerned with being compliant as re-distributor of OSS, and in > this case GWT. > > > >>> not since they had referred to section 5 in their previous mail, > stating that GWT was "work that uses the library". Right? > > > > No not at all. You can have a work-that-use-the-library AND also bundle > in the LGPL Binary. They are not mutually exclusive. Google posted > here that were a 'work that uses', they also have documentation that > says they bundle in the LGPL product binary with their work. I just > assumed both were true and hence it did not alleviate my concern. > > So again - If you package in the LGPL library as a binary with that > work, you have to provide source for the library. > > > > Basic Summary: > > GWT has a license file 'Copying' that states JFreeChart is included in > the binary distribution and it says to get source at JFreeChart's > website > > This was technically incorrect, from what I understand now, the LGPL > Product jFreeChart is not bundled in. > > The fact is Google is distributing GWT under 6b, with the expectation > that JFreeChart is pre-installed/acquired separately, etc. > > The documentation should say this. > > > > So we are done with the confusion and I know why it happen. > > I'll live with Google's lawyer dissing me as a case who is off in left > field. > > > > If all you care about is if GWT Compliant with LGPL, stop here. > > > > > > > > As to my basic concerns as a re-distributor of LGPL: > > > > If I re-distribute GWT with LGPL Product bundled in , I carry the same > obligations as Google for source code for LGPL. > > (the people on this site should have no argument that re-distributors > are just as liable under LGPL/GPL for source code) > > > > If they are using 6b, I can leverage that, I can re-distribute GWT with > no concerns as there is no LGPL Binary included, > > I do assume the end customer should be told of the JFreeChart > pre-requisite requirement, an issue of good documentation not license > compliancy. > > > > However, IF (only if ) they had bundled in JFreeChart binaries with GWT > then I stand firm on my 'understanding' > > If you bundle in the LGPL product binaries you are not following 6b. > You have to follow 6a, 6c or 6d. > > > > My preference as a re-distributor is OSS projects use 6a as the > approach, include the source for the LGPL Product in the package, at the > same time. > > I can leverage this and when I re-distribute I can just use the entire > package and my obligations are met. > > > > If they use 6c, a written offer, or even 6d, a same style access as the > binaries, as a re-distributor they do me no good. I have no right to > offer their offer to my customers, no control it will be in place for 3 > years, etc. You cannot just point someone to 'go over there' and be > compliant as a re-distributor of LGPL/GPL. Everyone knows this right? > > > > So aside from me not liking 6c as a re-distributor, it would make > Google/OSS Vendor themselves compliant. Though in this particular case > I would question if getting source via a SVN site and the requirements > that puts on the downloader, reaches the 'same manner' requirement that > the LGPL/GPL have. Just a question. > > > > > > Ok , so I've re-explained myself, my understanding and my motivation. > > > > Net, I don't suspect my basic understanding of this requirement is wrong > and certainly don't agree I am off in left field. However, if I am way > off, I am eager to be corrected and educated, here or directly to my > email > > > > Allan.hardy at lmco.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Klas Skogmar [mailto:klas at skogmar.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:08 AM > To: Hardy, Allan > Cc: chris at dibona.com; Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > > > Hardy, > > what is your motivation behind all this? Are you working at the > procurement department, trying to ensure open source compliance for your > company? That is all fine, but you are ranting a bit without addressing > the actual points that Google are making in this case: > > "If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. > Period." > > > > That was not very constructive - was it? Especially not since they had > referred to section 5 in their previous mail, stating that GWT was "work > that uses the library". Right? > > Regards, > > /Klas > > > > 2009/4/7 Hardy, Allan > > To the extent that no LGPL products are bundled into the GTW binary I > agree you are in compliance > > The license information in the distribution doesn't seem to reflect the > current packaging and licensing. > So license compliance aside, it could be helpful if that is reviewed an > updated. > > If however if LGPL products are bundled into the binary distribution I > am not sure if we are in agreement. If this were the case I would seek > further discussion and whatever formal routes where appropriate. > > I do appreciate the quick response to this. > > Allan Hardy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:49 PM > To: Hardy, Allan > > Cc: Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > Okay, I think this is now pretty unproductive. We are in compliance > to my satisfaction, if you'd like to bring this up formally, I'm > confident that we are doing the right thing here both by the letter > and the spiritually. > > Chris DiBona > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Hardy, Allan > wrote: >>> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary > distribution >>> or not? >>>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the > licensing >>>> file. >> >> >> Well geez, why didn't you just say the GWT Licensing documentation was > in >> error? Would have saved me and users in my company lots of time. >> >> >> >> So under 6b, JFreeChart is not shipped with GWT and is a > 'pre-requisite' or >> expected to be acquired and downloaded/installed by the customer and > GWT >> will use it if it is there kind of thing. >> >> >> >> I hope 1.6 cleans up such an error and calls out JFreeChart as a >> pre-requisite before its productions release. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and > this is >>>> a commonly understood section. >>>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... >> >> >> Meet my viewpoint? As In I am wrong and your right? Wow now were > getting a >> bit uppity. >> >> >> >> Yeah well I'm well aware of the requirements and law as well so I'd > really >> appreciate it if instead of just claiming I'm wrong and your right, > you'd >> take a second to explain. It will lead to a much more educated world. >> >> >> >> Just to be clear my whole point is that: >> >> If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. >> Period. >> >> >> >> I am not talking about shipping a work that uses the LGPL product, but > of >> shipping the LGPL product itself. >> >> (which is what GWT documentation led me to believe you were doing) >> >> >> >> There is nothing in 6 that alleviates this requirement as I see it and > I >> await your considered input. >> >> >> >> >> >> Again, thanks for clearing up that the GWT licensing documentation is > in >> error, I can make life easier for several request I have to use the > product. >> >> >> Allan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:40 PM >> To: Hardy, Allan >> Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Hardy, Allan > wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too > old >>> in haste >>> The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 I copied it below >>> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary >>> distribution or not? >> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. >> >> It was never removed the licensing file. >> >> >> >>> The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT >>> distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT >> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this >> >> is a commonly understood section. >> >> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... >> >> >> >>> Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a >>> shared library that kind of thing. But GWT Seems to include the > source, >>> not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own >> >> >> This has no bearing on whether that section applies. >> >>> Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? Only 6b or 6e are going to get > you >>> out of having to provide source. >> >> >> 6b. >> >> I am quite aware of the requirements of the LGPL. I contribute code to >> >> a number of GNU projects, besides being a lawyer. > > > > -- > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com > Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com > > > > -- --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931. From max at quendi.de Tue Apr 7 16:30:28 2009 From: max at quendi.de (Max Horn) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:30:28 +0200 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> Message-ID: Am 07.04.2009 um 13:01 schrieb mp: > > Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the > wall here: > > In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me > that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in > which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working > with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can, > whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source > projects. > > If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law", > then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal > theft", or? > > If this is not the case, please apologise my ignorance. I think this is clearly not the case! In my understanding, Google is using LGPL software in full compliance with the LGPL here. At least in the way I and many other OSS developers interpret the LGPL section 6(b), both in letter in spirit. Although Allan Hardy seems to disagree with it Anyway, I would be deeply surprised if the developers of JFreeChart and WebKit (the software in question here) would not agree with me here (only way to find out would be asking them). So, let's not start spreading FUD. Bye, Max From m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk Tue Apr 7 16:57:53 2009 From: m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk (mp) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:57:53 +0100 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> Message-ID: <49DB69F1.1020306@lancaster.ac.uk> Max Horn wrote: > > Am 07.04.2009 um 13:01 schrieb mp: > >> >> Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the wall >> here: >> >> In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me >> that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in >> which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working >> with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can, >> whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source projects. >> >> If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law", >> then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal >> theft", or? >> >> If this is not the case, please apologise my ignorance. > > I think this is clearly not the case! In my understanding, Google is > using LGPL software in full compliance with the LGPL here. At least in > the way I and many other OSS developers interpret the LGPL section 6(b), > both in letter in spirit. Although Allan Hardy seems to disagree with it > > Anyway, I would be deeply surprised if the developers of JFreeChart and > WebKit (the software in question here) would not agree with me here > (only way to find out would be asking them). > > So, let's not start spreading FUD. This is not in any possible way FUD - at all - and you miss the point entirely when you write "full compliance with the LGPL here" as a response to the question concerning the spirit of the movement(s). That someone is in legal compliance means just that: legal compliance. The way that I understood it was that the case at hand was about not releasing code, yet still being in compliance. You did not answer that question, but merely stated they are in compliance - not whether "being in compliance" means that they do not have to release their code, since it is only dynamically linked or whatever the details are. So, looking for ways in which to be in compliance _without_ releasing your code is not to contribute to the movement in its own spirit, but rather like profiting on its achievements, while working contrary to its spirit (which is, as you might have noticed, about open source, at least, Free Software at best). -m > > Bye, > Max > > -- --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931. From m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk Tue Apr 7 16:58:48 2009 From: m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk (mp) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:58:48 +0100 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> My apologies, I really don't understand the exchange, then! Daniel Berlin wrote: > We release absolutely every piece of source to webkit, so .... > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:01 AM, mp wrote: >> Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the wall here: >> >> In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me >> that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in >> which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working >> with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can, >> whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source projects. >> >> If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law", >> then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal theft", or? >> >> If this is not the case, please apologise my ignorance. >> >> -martin >> >> Hardy, Allan wrote: >>> Klas, >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes I'm concerned with being compliant as re-distributor of OSS, and in >>> this case GWT. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> not since they had referred to section 5 in their previous mail, >>> stating that GWT was "work that uses the library". Right? >>> >>> >>> >>> No not at all. ?You can have a work-that-use-the-library AND also bundle >>> in the LGPL Binary. ?They are not mutually exclusive. ?Google posted >>> here that were a 'work that uses', they also have documentation that >>> says they bundle in the LGPL product binary with their work. ?I just >>> assumed both were true and hence it did not alleviate my concern. >>> >>> So again - If you package in the LGPL library as a binary with that >>> work, you have to provide source for the library. >>> >>> >>> >>> Basic Summary: >>> >>> GWT has a license file 'Copying' that states JFreeChart is included in >>> the binary distribution and it says to get source at JFreeChart's >>> website >>> >>> This was technically incorrect, from what I understand now, the LGPL >>> Product jFreeChart is not bundled in. >>> >>> The fact is Google is distributing GWT under 6b, with the expectation >>> that JFreeChart is pre-installed/acquired separately, etc. >>> >>> The documentation should say this. >>> >>> >>> >>> So we are done with the confusion and I know why it happen. >>> >>> I'll live with Google's lawyer dissing me as a case who is off in left >>> field. >>> >>> >>> >>> If all you care about is if GWT Compliant with LGPL, stop here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> As to my basic concerns as a re-distributor of LGPL: >>> >>> >>> >>> If I re-distribute GWT with LGPL Product bundled in , I carry the same >>> obligations as Google for source code for LGPL. >>> >>> (the people on this site should have no argument that re-distributors >>> are just as liable under LGPL/GPL for source code) >>> >>> >>> >>> If they are using 6b, I can leverage that, I can re-distribute GWT with >>> no concerns as there is no LGPL Binary included, >>> >>> I do assume the end customer should be told of the JFreeChart >>> pre-requisite requirement, an issue of good documentation not license >>> compliancy. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, IF (only if ) they had bundled in JFreeChart binaries with GWT >>> then I stand firm on my 'understanding' >>> >>> If you bundle in the LGPL product binaries you are not following 6b. >>> You have to follow 6a, 6c or 6d. >>> >>> >>> >>> My preference as a re-distributor is OSS projects use 6a as the >>> approach, include the source for the LGPL Product in the package, at the >>> same time. >>> >>> I can leverage this and when I re-distribute I can just use the entire >>> package and my obligations are met. >>> >>> >>> >>> If they use 6c, a written offer, or even 6d, a same style access as the >>> binaries, as a re-distributor they do me no good. ?I have no right to >>> offer their offer to my customers, no control it will be in place for 3 >>> years, etc. ?You cannot just point someone to 'go over there' and be >>> compliant as a re-distributor of LGPL/GPL. ?Everyone knows this right? >>> >>> >>> >>> So aside from me not liking 6c as a re-distributor, it would make >>> Google/OSS Vendor themselves compliant. ?Though in this particular case >>> I would question if getting source via a SVN site and the requirements >>> that puts on the downloader, reaches the 'same manner' requirement that >>> the LGPL/GPL have. ?Just a question. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ok , so I've re-explained myself, my understanding and my motivation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Net, I don't suspect my basic understanding of this requirement is wrong >>> and certainly don't agree I am off in left field. ?However, if I am way >>> off, I am eager to be corrected and educated, here or directly to my >>> email >>> >>> >>> >>> Allan.hardy at lmco.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Klas Skogmar [mailto:klas at skogmar.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:08 AM >>> To: Hardy, Allan >>> Cc: chris at dibona.com; Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>> >>> >>> >>> Hardy, >>> >>> what is your motivation behind all this? Are you working at the >>> procurement department, trying to ensure open source compliance for your >>> company? That is all fine, but you are ranting a bit without addressing >>> the actual points that Google are making in this case: >>> >>> "If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. >>> Period." >>> >>> >>> >>> That was not very constructive - was it? Especially not since they had >>> referred to section 5 in their previous mail, stating that GWT was "work >>> that uses the library". Right? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> /Klas >>> >>> >>> >>> 2009/4/7 Hardy, Allan >>> >>> To the extent that no LGPL products are bundled into the GTW binary I >>> agree you are in compliance >>> >>> The license information in the distribution doesn't seem to reflect the >>> current packaging and licensing. >>> So license compliance aside, it could be helpful if that is reviewed an >>> updated. >>> >>> If however if LGPL products are bundled into the binary distribution I >>> am not sure if we are in agreement. If this were the case I would seek >>> further discussion and whatever formal routes where appropriate. >>> >>> I do appreciate the quick response to this. >>> >>> Allan Hardy >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:49 PM >>> To: Hardy, Allan >>> >>> Cc: Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>> >>> Okay, ?I think this is now pretty unproductive. We are in compliance >>> to my satisfaction, if you'd like to bring this up formally, I'm >>> confident that we are doing the right thing here both by the letter >>> and the spiritually. >>> >>> Chris DiBona >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Hardy, Allan >>> wrote: >>>>> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary >>> distribution >>>>> or not? >>>>>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the >>> licensing >>>>>> file. >>>> >>>> Well geez, why didn't you just say the GWT Licensing documentation was >>> in >>>> error? ?Would have saved me and users in my company lots of time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So under 6b, JFreeChart is not shipped with GWT and is a >>> 'pre-requisite' or >>>> expected to be acquired and downloaded/installed by the customer and >>> GWT >>>> will use it if it is there kind of thing. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope 1.6 cleans up such an error and calls out JFreeChart as a >>>> pre-requisite before its productions release. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and >>> this is >>>>>> a commonly understood section. >>>>>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... >>>> >>>> Meet my viewpoint? ?As In I am wrong and your right? ?Wow now were >>> getting a >>>> bit uppity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah well I'm well aware of the requirements and law as well so I'd >>> really >>>> appreciate it if instead of just claiming I'm wrong and your right, >>> you'd >>>> take a second to explain. ?It will lead to a much more educated world. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just to be clear my whole point is that: >>>> >>>> If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. >>>> Period. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not talking about shipping a work that uses the LGPL product, but >>> of >>>> shipping the LGPL product itself. >>>> >>>> (which is what GWT documentation led me to believe you were doing) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There is nothing in 6 that alleviates this requirement as I see it and >>> I >>>> await your considered input. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Again, thanks for clearing up that the GWT licensing documentation is >>> in >>>> error, I can make life easier for several request I have to use the >>> product. >>>> >>>> Allan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:40 PM >>>> To: Hardy, Allan >>>> Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>>> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Hardy, Allan >>> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too >>> old >>>>> in haste >>>>> The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 ?I copied it below >>>>> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary >>>>> distribution or not? >>>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. >>>> >>>> It was never removed the licensing file. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT >>>>> distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT >>>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this >>>> >>>> is a commonly understood section. >>>> >>>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a >>>>> shared library that kind of thing. ?But GWT Seems to include the >>> source, >>>>> not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own >>>> >>>> This has no bearing on whether that section applies. >>>> >>>>> Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? ?Only 6b or 6e are going to get >>> you >>>>> out of having to provide source. >>>> >>>> 6b. >>>> >>>> I am quite aware of the requirements of the LGPL. I contribute code to >>>> >>>> a number of GNU projects, besides being a lawyer. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. >>> Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com >>> Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is >> worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter >> Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931. >> > -- --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931. From cdibona at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 17:00:20 2009 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:00:20 -0700 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <49DB69F1.1020306@lancaster.ac.uk> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <49DB69F1.1020306@lancaster.ac.uk> Message-ID: <7d9492d90904070800p11f1d839yf86533c839c09521@mail.gmail.com> You do realize you are talking about a large project, mostly released under apache and bsd (with -no- proprietary components) right? To say we're not releasing 'enough' by discussing he linking requirement of an lgpl library is kind of ignorant. Chris On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:57 AM, mp wrote: > > > Max Horn wrote: >> >> Am 07.04.2009 um 13:01 schrieb mp: >> >>> >>> Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the wall >>> here: >>> >>> In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me >>> that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in >>> which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working >>> with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can, >>> whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source projects. >>> >>> If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law", >>> then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal >>> theft", or? >>> >>> If this is not the case, please apologise my ignorance. >> >> I think this is clearly not the case! In my understanding, Google is >> using LGPL software in full compliance with the LGPL here. At least in >> the way I and many other OSS developers interpret the LGPL section 6(b), >> both in letter in spirit. Although Allan Hardy seems to disagree with it >> >> Anyway, I would be deeply surprised if the developers of JFreeChart and >> WebKit (the software in question here) would not agree with me here >> (only way to find out would be asking them). >> >> So, let's not start spreading FUD. > > This is not in any possible way FUD - at all - and you miss the point > entirely when you write "full compliance with the LGPL here" as a > response to the question concerning the spirit of the movement(s). That > someone is in legal compliance means just that: legal compliance. > > The way that I understood it was that the case at hand was about not > releasing code, yet still being in compliance. You did not answer that > question, but merely stated they are in compliance - not whether "being > in compliance" means that they do not have to release their code, since > it is only dynamically linked or whatever the details are. > > So, looking for ways in which to be in compliance _without_ releasing > your code is not to contribute to the movement in its own spirit, but > rather like profiting on its achievements, while working contrary to its > spirit (which is, as you might have noticed, about open source, at > least, Free Software at best). > > -m > >> >> Bye, >> Max >> >> > > -- > --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is > worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter > Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931. > > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com From sfedder at hotmail.com Tue Apr 7 17:58:25 2009 From: sfedder at hotmail.com (Stephen C. Fedder) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:58:25 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk><2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> Message-ID: Pardon me if I am out of line following this thread, but Google is already releasing GWT completely as open-source under Apache 2.0 license, so it is not as if they are not releasing source code for the product in question. Also it seems as if this whole thread would have not been necessary if the original writer would have gone to the extent of actually verifying that the LGPL package was in fact actually being distributed by examining the downloads before publicly accusing a company like Google which contributes a huge amount of software and resources as open-source of violating license. Even if a company appears to be in violation, it is always the best course to first pursue compliance with them directly rather than posting public accusations. It looks like the biggest thing that Google has done here is to have an erroneous, parhaps out of date, reference in some of their online documentation referring to LGPL packages that may be used with GWT by the end user being provided by Google. I'm pretty sure there is no legal action to be taken as a result of a mistake in documentation. I have seen plenty of threads before regarding use of GPL/LGPL in devices where the accuser is told that they need a distribution and positive proof, i.e. dumps or listings showing the actual presence of GPL/LGPL code in a distributed product before posting an accusation. Stating that companies who actually do distribute LGPL binaries also need to post or otherwise make available corresponding source is just restating the license which anyone who follows this list should already know. -----Original Message----- From: mp [mailto:m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:59 AM To: Daniel Berlin Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code My apologies, I really don't understand the exchange, then! Daniel Berlin wrote: > We release absolutely every piece of source to webkit, so .... > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:01 AM, mp wrote: >> Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the wall here: >> >> In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me >> that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in >> which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working >> with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can, >> whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source projects. >> >> If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law", >> then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal theft", or? >> >> If this is not the case, please apologise my ignorance. >> >> -martin >> >> Hardy, Allan wrote: >>> Klas, >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes I'm concerned with being compliant as re-distributor of OSS, and in >>> this case GWT. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> not since they had referred to section 5 in their previous mail, >>> stating that GWT was "work that uses the library". Right? >>> >>> >>> >>> No not at all. ?You can have a work-that-use-the-library AND also bundle >>> in the LGPL Binary. ?They are not mutually exclusive. ?Google posted >>> here that were a 'work that uses', they also have documentation that >>> says they bundle in the LGPL product binary with their work. ?I just >>> assumed both were true and hence it did not alleviate my concern. >>> >>> So again - If you package in the LGPL library as a binary with that >>> work, you have to provide source for the library. >>> >>> >>> >>> Basic Summary: >>> >>> GWT has a license file 'Copying' that states JFreeChart is included in >>> the binary distribution and it says to get source at JFreeChart's >>> website >>> >>> This was technically incorrect, from what I understand now, the LGPL >>> Product jFreeChart is not bundled in. >>> >>> The fact is Google is distributing GWT under 6b, with the expectation >>> that JFreeChart is pre-installed/acquired separately, etc. >>> >>> The documentation should say this. >>> >>> >>> >>> So we are done with the confusion and I know why it happen. >>> >>> I'll live with Google's lawyer dissing me as a case who is off in left >>> field. >>> >>> >>> >>> If all you care about is if GWT Compliant with LGPL, stop here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> As to my basic concerns as a re-distributor of LGPL: >>> >>> >>> >>> If I re-distribute GWT with LGPL Product bundled in , I carry the same >>> obligations as Google for source code for LGPL. >>> >>> (the people on this site should have no argument that re-distributors >>> are just as liable under LGPL/GPL for source code) >>> >>> >>> >>> If they are using 6b, I can leverage that, I can re-distribute GWT with >>> no concerns as there is no LGPL Binary included, >>> >>> I do assume the end customer should be told of the JFreeChart >>> pre-requisite requirement, an issue of good documentation not license >>> compliancy. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, IF (only if ) they had bundled in JFreeChart binaries with GWT >>> then I stand firm on my 'understanding' >>> >>> If you bundle in the LGPL product binaries you are not following 6b. >>> You have to follow 6a, 6c or 6d. >>> >>> >>> >>> My preference as a re-distributor is OSS projects use 6a as the >>> approach, include the source for the LGPL Product in the package, at the >>> same time. >>> >>> I can leverage this and when I re-distribute I can just use the entire >>> package and my obligations are met. >>> >>> >>> >>> If they use 6c, a written offer, or even 6d, a same style access as the >>> binaries, as a re-distributor they do me no good. ?I have no right to >>> offer their offer to my customers, no control it will be in place for 3 >>> years, etc. ?You cannot just point someone to 'go over there' and be >>> compliant as a re-distributor of LGPL/GPL. ?Everyone knows this right? >>> >>> >>> >>> So aside from me not liking 6c as a re-distributor, it would make >>> Google/OSS Vendor themselves compliant. ?Though in this particular case >>> I would question if getting source via a SVN site and the requirements >>> that puts on the downloader, reaches the 'same manner' requirement that >>> the LGPL/GPL have. ?Just a question. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ok , so I've re-explained myself, my understanding and my motivation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Net, I don't suspect my basic understanding of this requirement is wrong >>> and certainly don't agree I am off in left field. ?However, if I am way >>> off, I am eager to be corrected and educated, here or directly to my >>> email >>> >>> >>> >>> Allan.hardy at lmco.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Klas Skogmar [mailto:klas at skogmar.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:08 AM >>> To: Hardy, Allan >>> Cc: chris at dibona.com; Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>> >>> >>> >>> Hardy, >>> >>> what is your motivation behind all this? Are you working at the >>> procurement department, trying to ensure open source compliance for your >>> company? That is all fine, but you are ranting a bit without addressing >>> the actual points that Google are making in this case: >>> >>> "If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. >>> Period." >>> >>> >>> >>> That was not very constructive - was it? Especially not since they had >>> referred to section 5 in their previous mail, stating that GWT was "work >>> that uses the library". Right? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> /Klas >>> >>> >>> >>> 2009/4/7 Hardy, Allan >>> >>> To the extent that no LGPL products are bundled into the GTW binary I >>> agree you are in compliance >>> >>> The license information in the distribution doesn't seem to reflect the >>> current packaging and licensing. >>> So license compliance aside, it could be helpful if that is reviewed an >>> updated. >>> >>> If however if LGPL products are bundled into the binary distribution I >>> am not sure if we are in agreement. If this were the case I would seek >>> further discussion and whatever formal routes where appropriate. >>> >>> I do appreciate the quick response to this. >>> >>> Allan Hardy >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:49 PM >>> To: Hardy, Allan >>> >>> Cc: Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>> >>> Okay, ?I think this is now pretty unproductive. We are in compliance >>> to my satisfaction, if you'd like to bring this up formally, I'm >>> confident that we are doing the right thing here both by the letter >>> and the spiritually. >>> >>> Chris DiBona >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Hardy, Allan >>> wrote: >>>>> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary >>> distribution >>>>> or not? >>>>>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the >>> licensing >>>>>> file. >>>> >>>> Well geez, why didn't you just say the GWT Licensing documentation was >>> in >>>> error? ?Would have saved me and users in my company lots of time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So under 6b, JFreeChart is not shipped with GWT and is a >>> 'pre-requisite' or >>>> expected to be acquired and downloaded/installed by the customer and >>> GWT >>>> will use it if it is there kind of thing. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope 1.6 cleans up such an error and calls out JFreeChart as a >>>> pre-requisite before its productions release. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and >>> this is >>>>>> a commonly understood section. >>>>>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... >>>> >>>> Meet my viewpoint? ?As In I am wrong and your right? ?Wow now were >>> getting a >>>> bit uppity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah well I'm well aware of the requirements and law as well so I'd >>> really >>>> appreciate it if instead of just claiming I'm wrong and your right, >>> you'd >>>> take a second to explain. ?It will lead to a much more educated world. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just to be clear my whole point is that: >>>> >>>> If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. >>>> Period. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not talking about shipping a work that uses the LGPL product, but >>> of >>>> shipping the LGPL product itself. >>>> >>>> (which is what GWT documentation led me to believe you were doing) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There is nothing in 6 that alleviates this requirement as I see it and >>> I >>>> await your considered input. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Again, thanks for clearing up that the GWT licensing documentation is >>> in >>>> error, I can make life easier for several request I have to use the >>> product. >>>> >>>> Allan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:40 PM >>>> To: Hardy, Allan >>>> Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>>> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Hardy, Allan >>> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too >>> old >>>>> in haste >>>>> The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 ?I copied it below >>>>> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary >>>>> distribution or not? >>>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. >>>> >>>> It was never removed the licensing file. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT >>>>> distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT >>>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this >>>> >>>> is a commonly understood section. >>>> >>>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a >>>>> shared library that kind of thing. ?But GWT Seems to include the >>> source, >>>>> not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own >>>> >>>> This has no bearing on whether that section applies. >>>> >>>>> Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? ?Only 6b or 6e are going to get >>> you >>>>> out of having to provide source. >>>> >>>> 6b. >>>> >>>> I am quite aware of the requirements of the LGPL. I contribute code to >>>> >>>> a number of GNU projects, besides being a lawyer. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. >>> Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com >>> Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is >> worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter >> Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931. >> > -- --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931. From dannyb at google.com Tue Apr 7 18:34:31 2009 From: dannyb at google.com (Daniel Berlin) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:34:31 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> Message-ID: <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: > Pardon me if I am out of line following this thread, but Google is already releasing GWT completely as open-source under Apache 2.0 license, so it is not as if they are not releasing source code for the product in question. ?Also it seems as if this whole thread would have not been necessary if the original writer would have gone to the extent of actually verifying that the LGPL package was in fact actually being distributed by examining the downloads before publicly accusing a company like Google which contributes a huge amount of software and resources as open-source of violating license. ?Even if a company appears to be in violation, it is always the best course to first pursue compliance with them directly rather than posting public accusations. ?It looks like the biggest thing that Google has done here is to have an erroneous, parhaps out of date, reference in some of their online documentation referring to LGPL packages that may be used with GWT by the end user being provided by Google. ?I'm pretty sure there is no legal action to be taken as a result of a mistake in documentation. > One of the GWT developers now tells me the jfreechart stuff is actually in there, just buried fairly deep (it's in a .war file contained in a .jar file somewhere) these days. So I apparently misspoke on that point :) That said, ... > I have seen plenty of threads before regarding use of GPL/LGPL in devices where the accuser is told that they need a distribution and positive proof, i.e. dumps > or listings showing the actual presence of GPL/LGPL code in a distributed product before posting an accusation. ?Stating that companies who actually do > distribute LGPL binaries also need to post or otherwise make available corresponding source is just restating the license which anyone who follows this list > should already know. So Mr Hardy's argument is essentially (as far as i understand it, please correct me if i am wrong): Distribution of gwt with jfreechart jar files embedded in it is not a "work that uses a library", instead gwt is the "work that uses the library" and it happens to include jfreechart. IE he doesn't believe the combined work is the work the LGPL is talking about in section 6 Thus, we must comply with both section 6 (for the GWT work), and a bunch of other sections for the jfreechart work. He further believes the only way for compliance with these other sections it to provide the source *with the binaries we distribute*, or provide an offer for source. I happen to disagree strongly with his argument about what the combined "work that uses the library" consists of, but even assuming I didn't, I can't find any support for portions of his view of what is required to comply in the LGPL. In particular, section 4 specifically allows distribution of source from the same place we distribute object files (which we do). This is true of both jfreechart and gwt, so even if you took his view of what the works here are, AFAICT, we would still be in compliance. Further, the only section that allows an offer for source is section 6 and since he thinks jfreechart is a separate work, its distribution wouldn't fall under section 6 (since it is not a "work that uses the library" linked in with the library), so I don't see how an offer for source would ever be allowed for works like GWT under his viewpoint. All of that said, as far as I know, we are happily in compliance with the LGPL since we meet all the requirements under either his view, or mine. Along the way I accidentally put a single word in quotes and he seems to have taken it personally, when it was a simple mistake (there is a lot of quoting in these emails, it was completely unintentional) for which I apologize. --Dan From dannyb at google.com Tue Apr 7 18:41:26 2009 From: dannyb at google.com (Daniel Berlin) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:41:26 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: >> Pardon me if I am out of line following this thread, but Google is already releasing GWT completely as open-source under Apache 2.0 license, so it is not as if they are not releasing source code for the product in question. ?Also it seems as if this whole thread would have not been necessary if the original writer would have gone to the extent of actually verifying that the LGPL package was in fact actually being distributed by examining the downloads before publicly accusing a company like Google which contributes a huge amount of software and resources as open-source of violating license. ?Even if a company appears to be in violation, it is always the best course to first pursue compliance with them directly rather than posting public accusations. ?It looks like the biggest thing that Google has done here is to have an erroneous, parhaps out of date, reference in some of their online documentation referring to LGPL packages that may be used with GWT by the end user being provided by Google. ?I'm pretty sure there is no legal action to be taken as a result of a mistake in documentation. >> > One of the GWT developers now tells me the jfreechart stuff is > actually in there, just buried fairly deep (it's in a .war file > contained in a .jar file somewhere) these days. > So I apparently misspoke on that point :) > That said, ... > >> I have seen plenty of threads before regarding use of GPL/LGPL in devices where the accuser is told that they need a distribution and positive proof, i.e. dumps > or listings showing the actual presence of GPL/LGPL code in a distributed product before posting an accusation. ?Stating that companies who actually do >> distribute LGPL binaries also need to post or otherwise make available corresponding source is just restating the license which anyone who follows this list >> should already know. > > So Mr Hardy's argument is essentially (as far as i understand it, > please correct me if i am wrong): > > Distribution of gwt with jfreechart jar files embedded in it is not a > "work that uses a library", instead gwt is the "work that uses the > library" and it happens to include jfreechart. ?IE he doesn't believe > the combined work is the work the LGPL is talking about in section 6 > Thus, we must comply with both section 6 (for the GWT work), and a > bunch of other sections for the jfreechart work. BTW, just to split this thread,, my reason for disagreement with him on this point simple. The LGPL (2.1) states "6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work ...." It clearly says "distribute *that* work" (emphasis mine) where "that" is referring to the combination of the LGPL'd library (jfreechart) and the "work that uses the library" (gwt). Thus, the work they are referring to as being granted exceptions to the other sections above is the combined work of GWT with jfreechart (whose combining "produce[d] a work containing portions of the Library"). He disagrees with this, and believes the inclusion of jfreechart jars in the work is not covered here. As I said however, whether I agree with him or not, we are still (AFAICT) in compliance in either case. --Dan From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 21:45:18 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:45:18 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093820D9@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> I was looking for a way to fulfill my obligations to release source code when I redistribute LGPL binaries. I found out there were no LGPL binaries and there is no issue Allan -----Original Message----- From: mp [mailto:m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 7:01 AM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: Klas Skogmar; Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the wall here: In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can, whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source projects. If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law", then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal theft", or? If this is not the case, please apologise my ignorance. -martin Hardy, Allan wrote: > Klas, > > > > Yes I'm concerned with being compliant as re-distributor of OSS, and in > this case GWT. > > > >>> not since they had referred to section 5 in their previous mail, > stating that GWT was "work that uses the library". Right? > > > > No not at all. You can have a work-that-use-the-library AND also bundle > in the LGPL Binary. They are not mutually exclusive. Google posted > here that were a 'work that uses', they also have documentation that > says they bundle in the LGPL product binary with their work. I just > assumed both were true and hence it did not alleviate my concern. > > So again - If you package in the LGPL library as a binary with that > work, you have to provide source for the library. > > > > Basic Summary: > > GWT has a license file 'Copying' that states JFreeChart is included in > the binary distribution and it says to get source at JFreeChart's > website > > This was technically incorrect, from what I understand now, the LGPL > Product jFreeChart is not bundled in. > > The fact is Google is distributing GWT under 6b, with the expectation > that JFreeChart is pre-installed/acquired separately, etc. > > The documentation should say this. > > > > So we are done with the confusion and I know why it happen. > > I'll live with Google's lawyer dissing me as a case who is off in left > field. > > > > If all you care about is if GWT Compliant with LGPL, stop here. > > > > > > > > As to my basic concerns as a re-distributor of LGPL: > > > > If I re-distribute GWT with LGPL Product bundled in , I carry the same > obligations as Google for source code for LGPL. > > (the people on this site should have no argument that re-distributors > are just as liable under LGPL/GPL for source code) > > > > If they are using 6b, I can leverage that, I can re-distribute GWT with > no concerns as there is no LGPL Binary included, > > I do assume the end customer should be told of the JFreeChart > pre-requisite requirement, an issue of good documentation not license > compliancy. > > > > However, IF (only if ) they had bundled in JFreeChart binaries with GWT > then I stand firm on my 'understanding' > > If you bundle in the LGPL product binaries you are not following 6b. > You have to follow 6a, 6c or 6d. > > > > My preference as a re-distributor is OSS projects use 6a as the > approach, include the source for the LGPL Product in the package, at the > same time. > > I can leverage this and when I re-distribute I can just use the entire > package and my obligations are met. > > > > If they use 6c, a written offer, or even 6d, a same style access as the > binaries, as a re-distributor they do me no good. I have no right to > offer their offer to my customers, no control it will be in place for 3 > years, etc. You cannot just point someone to 'go over there' and be > compliant as a re-distributor of LGPL/GPL. Everyone knows this right? > > > > So aside from me not liking 6c as a re-distributor, it would make > Google/OSS Vendor themselves compliant. Though in this particular case > I would question if getting source via a SVN site and the requirements > that puts on the downloader, reaches the 'same manner' requirement that > the LGPL/GPL have. Just a question. > > > > > > Ok , so I've re-explained myself, my understanding and my motivation. > > > > Net, I don't suspect my basic understanding of this requirement is wrong > and certainly don't agree I am off in left field. However, if I am way > off, I am eager to be corrected and educated, here or directly to my > email > > > > Allan.hardy at lmco.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Klas Skogmar [mailto:klas at skogmar.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:08 AM > To: Hardy, Allan > Cc: chris at dibona.com; Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > > > Hardy, > > what is your motivation behind all this? Are you working at the > procurement department, trying to ensure open source compliance for your > company? That is all fine, but you are ranting a bit without addressing > the actual points that Google are making in this case: > > "If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. > Period." > > > > That was not very constructive - was it? Especially not since they had > referred to section 5 in their previous mail, stating that GWT was "work > that uses the library". Right? > > Regards, > > /Klas > > > > 2009/4/7 Hardy, Allan > > To the extent that no LGPL products are bundled into the GTW binary I > agree you are in compliance > > The license information in the distribution doesn't seem to reflect the > current packaging and licensing. > So license compliance aside, it could be helpful if that is reviewed an > updated. > > If however if LGPL products are bundled into the binary distribution I > am not sure if we are in agreement. If this were the case I would seek > further discussion and whatever formal routes where appropriate. > > I do appreciate the quick response to this. > > Allan Hardy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:49 PM > To: Hardy, Allan > > Cc: Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > Okay, I think this is now pretty unproductive. We are in compliance > to my satisfaction, if you'd like to bring this up formally, I'm > confident that we are doing the right thing here both by the letter > and the spiritually. > > Chris DiBona > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Hardy, Allan > wrote: >>> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary > distribution >>> or not? >>>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the > licensing >>>> file. >> >> >> Well geez, why didn't you just say the GWT Licensing documentation was > in >> error? Would have saved me and users in my company lots of time. >> >> >> >> So under 6b, JFreeChart is not shipped with GWT and is a > 'pre-requisite' or >> expected to be acquired and downloaded/installed by the customer and > GWT >> will use it if it is there kind of thing. >> >> >> >> I hope 1.6 cleans up such an error and calls out JFreeChart as a >> pre-requisite before its productions release. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and > this is >>>> a commonly understood section. >>>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... >> >> >> Meet my viewpoint? As In I am wrong and your right? Wow now were > getting a >> bit uppity. >> >> >> >> Yeah well I'm well aware of the requirements and law as well so I'd > really >> appreciate it if instead of just claiming I'm wrong and your right, > you'd >> take a second to explain. It will lead to a much more educated world. >> >> >> >> Just to be clear my whole point is that: >> >> If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. >> Period. >> >> >> >> I am not talking about shipping a work that uses the LGPL product, but > of >> shipping the LGPL product itself. >> >> (which is what GWT documentation led me to believe you were doing) >> >> >> >> There is nothing in 6 that alleviates this requirement as I see it and > I >> await your considered input. >> >> >> >> >> >> Again, thanks for clearing up that the GWT licensing documentation is > in >> error, I can make life easier for several request I have to use the > product. >> >> >> Allan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:40 PM >> To: Hardy, Allan >> Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Hardy, Allan > wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too > old >>> in haste >>> The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 I copied it below >>> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary >>> distribution or not? >> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. >> >> It was never removed the licensing file. >> >> >> >>> The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT >>> distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT >> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this >> >> is a commonly understood section. >> >> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... >> >> >> >>> Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a >>> shared library that kind of thing. But GWT Seems to include the > source, >>> not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own >> >> >> This has no bearing on whether that section applies. >> >>> Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? Only 6b or 6e are going to get > you >>> out of having to provide source. >> >> >> 6b. >> >> I am quite aware of the requirements of the LGPL. I contribute code to >> >> a number of GNU projects, besides being a lawyer. > > > > -- > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com > Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com > > > > -- --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931. From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 22:31:40 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:31:40 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904070803o79a7ee47q7a6f6b05264b4b84@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904070803o79a7ee47q7a6f6b05264b4b84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938219D@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Daniel, >> You claim we are required in such a case to make a written offer, and cannot simply link to the source, which is also incorrect. I do not make that claim, I really didn't. I do not understand why I am being misunderstood here, my apologizes if I am a bad writer. I really would like to find common ground and agreement. As I said If I am wrong I really am more interested in finding that out then protecting my ego etc. If its not just t0o much back and forth - this is a summary below **MY CLAIMS If you provide the LGPL Binary you have 3 options to provide source - 6a - ship it - 6c - written offer - 6d - same manner/same website - What you cannot do is tell people to go get source a the LGPL Products website, JFreeChart website in this case. Pointing to some other website is not an allowed way to fulfill your source requirement. This is an important point to my argument - What you cannot do is provide the binary and then claim a 6b model and do not have to provide source None of the above is what you are actually doing I am just trying to get on the same page Are we set up top this point? **DOCUMENTION ERRORS The GWT License file says that JFreeChart is included in the binary Error1 - it is not, but it says it is an that's what started me on the tortuous road It also says that the sources are provided at google 'or as or as otherwise indicated at the bottom of this page' At the bottom of the page it says go to jfreechart's website This is what set me off. You cannot tell people to go somewhere else for source. It is not an allowed way to fulfill your source requirement. What about the source being at google site? First, I read as 'google site OR as noted below' - which I read as its not at google site when I saw the direction to go to JFreeChart. Error2 - Perhaps my way of reading. If it had read: 'at google's site AND as noted below' I would not have made the wrong leap. Of course this is all mute because the documentation is wrong, the binary is not included. ***WHAT IFS Ok, now if we want to discuss what ifs, what if the documentation wasn't wrong and jFreeChart binary was bundled in - The pointing someone to JFreeChart website for source is wrong But would putting the source at the google site be enough, would it fulfill under 6d? I am going to argue no because its not equivalent access. SVN repositories are NOT the same manner and click and download from the project page. But we are I the weeds here and while I would love to argue this academically, it might be to off topic. It certainly would not be a reason why I would open a post at GPL-Violations with the title I did. ***Redistribution As an Re-distributor I have the same obligations and the same options in regards to source code I cannot use your written offer - 6c I cannot use your download site - 6d (I cant tell people to go get source at google) So I like 6a approaches. Right? -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:03 AM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: Klas Skogmar; chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > Klas, > > > > Yes I'm concerned with being compliant as re-distributor of OSS, and in this > case GWT. > > > >>> not since they had referred to section 5 in their previous mail, stating >>> that GWT was "work?that uses the library". Right? > > > > No not at all. ?You can have a work-that-use-the-library AND also bundle in > the LGPL Binary.? They are not mutually exclusive. Let's assume everything you say is true (I still very heavily disagree with your interpretation for reasons i've stated multiple times). You claim we are required in such a case to make a written offer, and cannot simply link to the source, which is also incorrect. From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 21:48:07 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:48:07 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061343y3ee608f1q5a4565dd722bf26e@mail.gmail.com> <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093820E8@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> >> Although Allan Hardy seems to disagree with it I do not disagree 6(b) means it does not require me to ship source since there are no binaries being shipped The issue and concern was caused by GWT documentation that says binaries were being shipped and 6b was not being used. Allan -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Max Horn Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:30 AM To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Am 07.04.2009 um 13:01 schrieb mp: > > Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the > wall here: > > In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me > that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in > which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working > with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can, > whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source > projects. > > If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law", > then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal > theft", or? > > If this is not the case, please apologise my ignorance. I think this is clearly not the case! In my understanding, Google is using LGPL software in full compliance with the LGPL here. At least in the way I and many other OSS developers interpret the LGPL section 6(b), both in letter in spirit. Although Allan Hardy seems to disagree with it Anyway, I would be deeply surprised if the developers of JFreeChart and WebKit (the software in question here) would not agree with me here (only way to find out would be asking them). So, let's not start spreading FUD. Bye, Max -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090407/4ad240ea/attachment-0001.htm From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 22:41:58 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:41:58 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904070805i37f00921l40a686b6ed6ae535@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070805i37f00921l40a686b6ed6ae535@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093821C4@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> >> Mr Hardy believes what we do for the binaries is not good enough. I wish I had read this before last post. Mr Hardy has no problem now, what you are doing is good enough and legal and complaint - given the facts Mr Hardy does wish you would update the License file/Documentation to accurately reflect the packing If however you do include the LGPL binaries in the distro, I do not think what your doing via SVN repository for source would be compliant, see my last note. And as a re-distributor I would ask you to do it differently, to make my life easier I guess. But I've no wish to continue this into hypotheticals under a post with such an inflammatory heading and un friendly manner. Allan Hardy -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:06 AM To: mp Cc: Hardy, Allan; Klas Skogmar; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:01 AM, mp wrote: > > Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the wall here: > > In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me > that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in > which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working > with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can, > whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source projects. > > If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law", > then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal theft", or? We absolutely provide source to every single piece of GWT, in the source repo at code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit. Mr Hardy believes what we do for the binaries is not good enough. From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 22:59:53 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:59:53 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80904071308q2d088eb9l8c5bf9c4e8271c37@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093820D9@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <30dfe2a80904071308q2d088eb9l8c5bf9c4e8271c37@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093821F9@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Hi Thomas I don't see that as a wiseass question at all. Im happy to share basically what I feel is the policy/practice for a re-distributor to be compliant if LGPL Binaries are part of the distribution There are two main scenarios, one where I directly acquire and use the LGPL product and one where the LGPL is bundled into something a supplier/sub contractor provides to me. Directly Acquired Basically follow 6a, get the source and include it with the shipment/distribution. Making offers and standing up websites is not a practical option. One golden rule - always ship source with GPL/LGPL binary distributions Indirectly Acquired For example a commercial product that has bundled in LGPL/GPL. I find that the majority of folks do not have their act together, they don't offer source on their website, many don't even know they have obligations. So in some way I'm educating them, which is why I'd rather find out I am wrong as noted in the other posts First we contractually require the vendor to provide us the source, so we can be compliant. As a less desired course, if the vendor has the source on their website, we will add in contract terms that they will offer the source on our behalf, for 3 years, etc etc. Then we pass along this website/offer when we redistribute Lastly, if we cant negotiate either of the above we will require them to tell us the exact version they use and out guys will go get source independently and put it in the package/distro. While I know it means the vendor is not compliant themselves, I cant fix everyone and need to make sure I am compliant Does that help explain? Allan -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Charron [mailto:twaffle at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:08 PM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: mp; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code On 4/7/09, Hardy, Allan wrote: > I was looking for a way to fulfill my obligations to release source code when I redistribute LGPL binaries. > I found out there were no LGPL binaries and there is no issue Not to sound like a wiseass or anything, but based on your own initial complaints, you're going to have to host the source yourself for any LGPL components. So how exactly would you be covering anything by ensuring Google has released them to *you*. -- -- Thomas From twaffle at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 22:08:21 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:08:21 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093820D9@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093820D9@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80904071308q2d088eb9l8c5bf9c4e8271c37@mail.gmail.com> On 4/7/09, Hardy, Allan wrote: > I was looking for a way to fulfill my obligations to release source code when I redistribute LGPL binaries. > I found out there were no LGPL binaries and there is no issue Not to sound like a wiseass or anything, but based on your own initial complaints, you're going to have to host the source yourself for any LGPL components. So how exactly would you be covering anything by ensuring Google has released them to *you*. -- -- Thomas From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 23:08:36 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:08:36 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938221D@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> >>original writer would have gone to the extent of actually verifying that the LGPL package was in fact actually being distributed ... Perhaps. I tend to not agree with you. Google, documented that they where doing X, being the respectable company they are I took them at their word. I don?t think it was improper to believe them. I agree in hindsite the way I phrased the first post- as an accusation and not a question - was wrong, inflammatory, my apologies Perhaps they were thrown off by my writing style, but if they simply had said the documentation was wrong, it would have been a shorter thread. Enough mia culpa? Allan -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Stephen C. Fedder Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:58 AM Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Pardon me if I am out of line following this thread, but Google is already releasing GWT completely as open-source under Apache 2.0 license, so it is not as if they are not releasing source code for the product in question. Also it seems as if this whole thread would have not been necessary if the original writer would have gone to the extent of actually verifying that the LGPL package was in fact actually being distributed by examining the downloads before publicly accusing a company like Google which contributes a huge amount of software and resources as open-source of violating license. Even if a company appears to be in violation, it is always the best course to first pursue compliance with them directly rather than posting public accusations. It looks like the biggest thing that Google has done here is to have an erroneous, parhaps out of date, reference in some of their online documentation referring to LGPL packages that may be used with GWT by the end user being provided by Google. I'm pretty sure there is no legal action to be taken as a result of a mistake in documentation. I have seen plenty of threads before regarding use of GPL/LGPL in devices where the accuser is told that they need a distribution and positive proof, i.e. dumps or listings showing the actual presence of GPL/LGPL code in a distributed product before posting an accusation. Stating that companies who actually do distribute LGPL binaries also need to post or otherwise make available corresponding source is just restating the license which anyone who follows this list should already know. -----Original Message----- From: mp [mailto:m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:59 AM To: Daniel Berlin Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code My apologies, I really don't understand the exchange, then! Daniel Berlin wrote: > We release absolutely every piece of source to webkit, so .... > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:01 AM, mp wrote: >> Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the wall here: >> >> In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me >> that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in >> which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working >> with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can, >> whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source projects. >> >> If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law", >> then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal theft", or? >> >> If this is not the case, please apologise my ignorance. >> >> -martin >> >> Hardy, Allan wrote: >>> Klas, >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes I'm concerned with being compliant as re-distributor of OSS, and in >>> this case GWT. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> not since they had referred to section 5 in their previous mail, >>> stating that GWT was "work that uses the library". Right? >>> >>> >>> >>> No not at all. ?You can have a work-that-use-the-library AND also bundle >>> in the LGPL Binary. ?They are not mutually exclusive. ?Google posted >>> here that were a 'work that uses', they also have documentation that >>> says they bundle in the LGPL product binary with their work. ?I just >>> assumed both were true and hence it did not alleviate my concern. >>> >>> So again - If you package in the LGPL library as a binary with that >>> work, you have to provide source for the library. >>> >>> >>> >>> Basic Summary: >>> >>> GWT has a license file 'Copying' that states JFreeChart is included in >>> the binary distribution and it says to get source at JFreeChart's >>> website >>> >>> This was technically incorrect, from what I understand now, the LGPL >>> Product jFreeChart is not bundled in. >>> >>> The fact is Google is distributing GWT under 6b, with the expectation >>> that JFreeChart is pre-installed/acquired separately, etc. >>> >>> The documentation should say this. >>> >>> >>> >>> So we are done with the confusion and I know why it happen. >>> >>> I'll live with Google's lawyer dissing me as a case who is off in left >>> field. >>> >>> >>> >>> If all you care about is if GWT Compliant with LGPL, stop here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> As to my basic concerns as a re-distributor of LGPL: >>> >>> >>> >>> If I re-distribute GWT with LGPL Product bundled in , I carry the same >>> obligations as Google for source code for LGPL. >>> >>> (the people on this site should have no argument that re-distributors >>> are just as liable under LGPL/GPL for source code) >>> >>> >>> >>> If they are using 6b, I can leverage that, I can re-distribute GWT with >>> no concerns as there is no LGPL Binary included, >>> >>> I do assume the end customer should be told of the JFreeChart >>> pre-requisite requirement, an issue of good documentation not license >>> compliancy. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, IF (only if ) they had bundled in JFreeChart binaries with GWT >>> then I stand firm on my 'understanding' >>> >>> If you bundle in the LGPL product binaries you are not following 6b. >>> You have to follow 6a, 6c or 6d. >>> >>> >>> >>> My preference as a re-distributor is OSS projects use 6a as the >>> approach, include the source for the LGPL Product in the package, at the >>> same time. >>> >>> I can leverage this and when I re-distribute I can just use the entire >>> package and my obligations are met. >>> >>> >>> >>> If they use 6c, a written offer, or even 6d, a same style access as the >>> binaries, as a re-distributor they do me no good. ?I have no right to >>> offer their offer to my customers, no control it will be in place for 3 >>> years, etc. ?You cannot just point someone to 'go over there' and be >>> compliant as a re-distributor of LGPL/GPL. ?Everyone knows this right? >>> >>> >>> >>> So aside from me not liking 6c as a re-distributor, it would make >>> Google/OSS Vendor themselves compliant. ?Though in this particular case >>> I would question if getting source via a SVN site and the requirements >>> that puts on the downloader, reaches the 'same manner' requirement that >>> the LGPL/GPL have. ?Just a question. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ok , so I've re-explained myself, my understanding and my motivation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Net, I don't suspect my basic understanding of this requirement is wrong >>> and certainly don't agree I am off in left field. ?However, if I am way >>> off, I am eager to be corrected and educated, here or directly to my >>> email >>> >>> >>> >>> Allan.hardy at lmco.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Klas Skogmar [mailto:klas at skogmar.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:08 AM >>> To: Hardy, Allan >>> Cc: chris at dibona.com; Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>> >>> >>> >>> Hardy, >>> >>> what is your motivation behind all this? Are you working at the >>> procurement department, trying to ensure open source compliance for your >>> company? That is all fine, but you are ranting a bit without addressing >>> the actual points that Google are making in this case: >>> >>> "If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. >>> Period." >>> >>> >>> >>> That was not very constructive - was it? Especially not since they had >>> referred to section 5 in their previous mail, stating that GWT was "work >>> that uses the library". Right? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> /Klas >>> >>> >>> >>> 2009/4/7 Hardy, Allan >>> >>> To the extent that no LGPL products are bundled into the GTW binary I >>> agree you are in compliance >>> >>> The license information in the distribution doesn't seem to reflect the >>> current packaging and licensing. >>> So license compliance aside, it could be helpful if that is reviewed an >>> updated. >>> >>> If however if LGPL products are bundled into the binary distribution I >>> am not sure if we are in agreement. If this were the case I would seek >>> further discussion and whatever formal routes where appropriate. >>> >>> I do appreciate the quick response to this. >>> >>> Allan Hardy >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:49 PM >>> To: Hardy, Allan >>> >>> Cc: Daniel Berlin; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>> >>> Okay, ?I think this is now pretty unproductive. We are in compliance >>> to my satisfaction, if you'd like to bring this up formally, I'm >>> confident that we are doing the right thing here both by the letter >>> and the spiritually. >>> >>> Chris DiBona >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Hardy, Allan >>> wrote: >>>>> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary >>> distribution >>>>> or not? >>>>>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. It was never removed the >>> licensing >>>>>> file. >>>> >>>> Well geez, why didn't you just say the GWT Licensing documentation was >>> in >>>> error? ?Would have saved me and users in my company lots of time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So under 6b, JFreeChart is not shipped with GWT and is a >>> 'pre-requisite' or >>>> expected to be acquired and downloaded/installed by the customer and >>> GWT >>>> will use it if it is there kind of thing. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope 1.6 cleans up such an error and calls out JFreeChart as a >>>> pre-requisite before its productions release. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and >>> this is >>>>>> a commonly understood section. >>>>>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... >>>> >>>> Meet my viewpoint? ?As In I am wrong and your right? ?Wow now were >>> getting a >>>> bit uppity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah well I'm well aware of the requirements and law as well so I'd >>> really >>>> appreciate it if instead of just claiming I'm wrong and your right, >>> you'd >>>> take a second to explain. ?It will lead to a much more educated world. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just to be clear my whole point is that: >>>> >>>> If you ship binaries for the LGPL Product you have source obligations. >>>> Period. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not talking about shipping a work that uses the LGPL product, but >>> of >>>> shipping the LGPL product itself. >>>> >>>> (which is what GWT documentation led me to believe you were doing) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There is nothing in 6 that alleviates this requirement as I see it and >>> I >>>> await your considered input. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Again, thanks for clearing up that the GWT licensing documentation is >>> in >>>> error, I can make life easier for several request I have to use the >>> product. >>>> >>>> Allan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:40 PM >>>> To: Hardy, Allan >>>> Cc: chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>>> Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Hardy, Allan >>> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Yep, wrong version, went to FSF and site, old version and went too >>> old >>>>> in haste >>>>> The section I should have copied is 4 in LGPL 2.1 ?I copied it below >>>>> So, help me understand, is JFreeChart part of the GWT binary >>>>> distribution or not? >>>> Not current versions of GWT, AFAIK. >>>> >>>> It was never removed the licensing file. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The Section 6 is only going to apply as you say if you are NOT >>>>> distributing the JFreeChart binaries with GWT >>>> I'm not sure why you would think this, since it is incorrect, and this >>>> >>>> is a commonly understood section. >>>> >>>> But since we meet "your" viewpoint of this anyway, ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Example 6b - if already on a customers machine and you link in as a >>>>> shared library that kind of thing. ?But GWT Seems to include the >>> source, >>>>> not make it a pre-requisite the user must install on their own >>>> >>>> This has no bearing on whether that section applies. >>>> >>>>> Are you claiming 6 a, b, c, d, or e? ?Only 6b or 6e are going to get >>> you >>>>> out of having to provide source. >>>> >>>> 6b. >>>> >>>> I am quite aware of the requirements of the LGPL. I contribute code to >>>> >>>> a number of GNU projects, besides being a lawyer. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. >>> Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com >>> Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is >> worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter >> Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931. >> > -- --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931. From sfedder at hotmail.com Tue Apr 7 23:26:39 2009 From: sfedder at hotmail.com (Stephen C. Fedder) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:26:39 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included as binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which was why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively before starting a thread. I still think that the potential non-compliance should also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target directory on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by the user with another version compiled from source. Inclusion of the binaries in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated into the war being distributed. Providing a link to the website of the original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the application on. This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL software. Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or dynamically linked with the product, must still be provided. Section 6 is meant to specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral nature of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) of the library. It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the source code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the jfree chart package is included as binary class files. Since the class files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being embedded with an application). This makes it more problematic for an end user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing the beginning of the jfree distribution is below... Steve Viewing .ZIP: gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar Length Method Size Ratio Date Time Name ------ ------ ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p META-INF/ 106B DeflatN 94B 11.4% 10/16/2008 8:51p META-INF/MANIFEST.MF 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ 1155B DeflatN 280B 75.8% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/05E3350BE732DDDB3B85DD46FFD36640.gwt .rpc 96KB DeflatN 31KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/307379F5BC19B8D66A0E5854F18DD16C.cac he.html 92B DeflatN 90B 2.2% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/548CDF11D6FE9011F3447CA200D7FB7F.cac he.png 94KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/5593544A9B81C47D9C45D7495DD32D39.cac he.html 95KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/7E3474503F94573F692DBA8DD87BFA9C.cac he.html 95KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/8CA2E60EAF91C3F19503B0164F5F4F9E.cac he.html 90B DeflatN 88B 2.3% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/9DA92932034707C17CFF15F95086D53F.cac he.png 93KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/DE13FF3F0794AFB1A58A0664B968C62C.cac he.html 1044B DeflatN 361B 65.5% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.css 282B DeflatN 188B 33.4% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.html 43B DeflatN 37B 14.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/clear.cache.gif 5686B DeflatN 2322B 59.2% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/com.google.gwt.benchmarks.viewer.Rep ortViewer.nocache.js 262B DeflatN 176B 32.9% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/gradient.gif 436B DeflatN 246B 43.6% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/history.html 1408B DeflatN 580B 58.9% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/hosted.html 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/client/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/server/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/keypoint/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/bc/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/bc/asn1/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/simpleparser/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/markup/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/postscript/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/wmf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/events/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/fonts/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/hyphenation/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/direct/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/output/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/field/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/graphic/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/headerfooter/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/list/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/style/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/table/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/text/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/xmp/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/arguments/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/treeview/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/config/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/log/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/modules/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/annotations/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/axis/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/block/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/demo/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/editor/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/encoders/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/entity/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/event/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/imagemap/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/labels/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/needle/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/plot/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/category/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/xy/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/resources/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/servlet/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/title/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/urls/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/util/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/category/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/contour/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/function/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/gantt/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/general/ -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:41 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: >> Pardon me if I am out of line following this thread, but Google is already releasing GWT completely as open-source under Apache 2.0 license, so it is not as if they are not releasing source code for the product in question. ?Also it seems as if this whole thread would have not been necessary if the original writer would have gone to the extent of actually verifying that the LGPL package was in fact actually being distributed by examining the downloads before publicly accusing a company like Google which contributes a huge amount of software and resources as open-source of violating license. ?Even if a company appears to be in violation, it is always the best course to first pursue compliance with them directly rather than posting public accusations. ?It looks like the biggest thing that Google has done here is to have an erroneous, parhaps out of date, reference in some of their online documentation referring to LGPL packages that may be used with GWT by the end user being provided by Google. ?I'm pretty sure there is no legal action to be taken as a result of a mistake in documentation. >> > One of the GWT developers now tells me the jfreechart stuff is > actually in there, just buried fairly deep (it's in a .war file > contained in a .jar file somewhere) these days. > So I apparently misspoke on that point :) > That said, ... > >> I have seen plenty of threads before regarding use of GPL/LGPL in devices where the accuser is told that they need a distribution and positive proof, i.e. dumps > or listings showing the actual presence of GPL/LGPL code in a distributed product before posting an accusation. ?Stating that companies who actually do >> distribute LGPL binaries also need to post or otherwise make available corresponding source is just restating the license which anyone who follows this list >> should already know. > > So Mr Hardy's argument is essentially (as far as i understand it, > please correct me if i am wrong): > > Distribution of gwt with jfreechart jar files embedded in it is not a > "work that uses a library", instead gwt is the "work that uses the > library" and it happens to include jfreechart. ?IE he doesn't believe > the combined work is the work the LGPL is talking about in section 6 > Thus, we must comply with both section 6 (for the GWT work), and a > bunch of other sections for the jfreechart work. BTW, just to split this thread,, my reason for disagreement with him on this point simple. The LGPL (2.1) states "6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work ...." It clearly says "distribute *that* work" (emphasis mine) where "that" is referring to the combination of the LGPL'd library (jfreechart) and the "work that uses the library" (gwt). Thus, the work they are referring to as being granted exceptions to the other sections above is the combined work of GWT with jfreechart (whose combining "produce[d] a work containing portions of the Library"). He disagrees with this, and believes the inclusion of jfreechart jars in the work is not covered here. As I said however, whether I agree with him or not, we are still (AFAICT) in compliance in either case. --Dan From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 23:47:32 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:47:32 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093822AA@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Ok, another post I wish I had read first Firstly - the fact that JFreechart is bundled in and the documentation is not in error well sorta resets things. I first however want to see if I can at least address Mr Berlin's, feel free to call me Allan, view of my position I noticed you used the phrases 'work-that-uses-a' and 'work-that-uses-the' library, I am not sure if this is a typo or a difference I am not aware of? I am all fine that JFreeChart is a work-that-uses-the-library and not a work-based-on-the-library, which are the only two definition I think LGPL v2.1 has. In all honesty it doesn't seem to matter what GWT is classified as? In what I am saying I don't even care if GWT uses JFreeChart at all, all that matters, I believe, is that the JFreeChart binary is in the distribution. If it is, even if never used, it comes with source requirements. My point was really that simple, if you ship the binary, you have source obligations. GWT could be a work-that-would-not-touch-the-library-with-a-ten-foot-pole, but if it bundles in the library binary, there is source to deal with. Do we disagree with that? If we agree great, the next point is what part of 6 applies to fulfilling the source requirements But Im going to shut up now and just let this settle, give you a chance to read my other posts etc. And yes I did take offense, but Im over that, thanks for the acknowledgment Allan -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Berlin Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:35 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: > Pardon me if I am out of line following this thread, but Google is already releasing GWT completely as open-source under Apache 2.0 license, so it is not as if they are not releasing source code for the product in question. ?Also it seems as if this whole thread would have not been necessary if the original writer would have gone to the extent of actually verifying that the LGPL package was in fact actually being distributed by examining the downloads before publicly accusing a company like Google which contributes a huge amount of software and resources as open-source of violating license. ?Even if a company appears to be in violation, it is always the best course to first pursue compliance with them directly rather than posting public accusations. ?It looks like the biggest thing that Google has done here is to have an erroneous, parhaps out of date, reference in some of their online documentation referring to LGPL packages that may be used with GWT by the end user being provided by Google. ?I'm pretty sure there is no legal action to be taken as a result of a mistake in documentation. > One of the GWT developers now tells me the jfreechart stuff is actually in there, just buried fairly deep (it's in a .war file contained in a .jar file somewhere) these days. So I apparently misspoke on that point :) That said, ... > I have seen plenty of threads before regarding use of GPL/LGPL in devices where the accuser is told that they need a distribution and positive proof, i.e. dumps > or listings showing the actual presence of GPL/LGPL code in a distributed product before posting an accusation. ?Stating that companies who actually do > distribute LGPL binaries also need to post or otherwise make available corresponding source is just restating the license which anyone who follows this list > should already know. So Mr Hardy's argument is essentially (as far as i understand it, please correct me if i am wrong): Distribution of gwt with jfreechart jar files embedded in it is not a "work that uses a library", instead gwt is the "work that uses the library" and it happens to include jfreechart. IE he doesn't believe the combined work is the work the LGPL is talking about in section 6 Thus, we must comply with both section 6 (for the GWT work), and a bunch of other sections for the jfreechart work. He further believes the only way for compliance with these other sections it to provide the source *with the binaries we distribute*, or provide an offer for source. I happen to disagree strongly with his argument about what the combined "work that uses the library" consists of, but even assuming I didn't, I can't find any support for portions of his view of what is required to comply in the LGPL. In particular, section 4 specifically allows distribution of source from the same place we distribute object files (which we do). This is true of both jfreechart and gwt, so even if you took his view of what the works here are, AFAICT, we would still be in compliance. Further, the only section that allows an offer for source is section 6 and since he thinks jfreechart is a separate work, its distribution wouldn't fall under section 6 (since it is not a "work that uses the library" linked in with the library), so I don't see how an offer for source would ever be allowed for works like GWT under his viewpoint. All of that said, as far as I know, we are happily in compliance with the LGPL since we meet all the requirements under either his view, or mine. Along the way I accidentally put a single word in quotes and he seems to have taken it personally, when it was a simple mistake (there is a lot of quoting in these emails, it was completely unintentional) for which I apologize. --Dan From dannyb at google.com Tue Apr 7 23:50:36 2009 From: dannyb at google.com (Daniel Berlin) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:50:36 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fbe2a060904071450w79f4dda7ybc0bfd2762dc1a25@mail.gmail.com> We do provide the source archives for jfreechart, at the exact same place we provide the gwt downloads They are in the svn repository, rather than on the downloads page. We have done this since the first release of gwt The docs link to the original website not because you have to go there to get source, but because that is where it came from. On Apr 7, 2009 5:27 PM, "Stephen C. Fedder" wrote: Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included as binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which was why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively before starting a thread. I still think that the potential non-compliance should also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target directory on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by the user with another version compiled from source. Inclusion of the binaries in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated into the war being distributed. Providing a link to the website of the original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the application on. This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL software. Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or dynamically linked with the product, must still be provided. Section 6 is meant to specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral nature of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) of the library. It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the source code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the jfree chart package is included as binary class files. Since the class files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being embedded with an application). This makes it more problematic for an end user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing the beginning of the jfree distribution is below... Steve Viewing .ZIP: gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar Length Method Size Ratio Date Time Name ------ ------ ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p META-INF/ 106B DeflatN 94B 11.4% 10/16/2008 8:51p META-INF/MANIFEST.MF 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ 1155B DeflatN 280B 75.8% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/05E3350BE732DDDB3B85DD46FFD36640.gwt .rpc 96KB DeflatN 31KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/307379F5BC19B8D66A0E5854F18DD16C.cac he.html 92B DeflatN 90B 2.2% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/548CDF11D6FE9011F3447CA200D7FB7F.cac he.png 94KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/5593544A9B81C47D9C45D7495DD32D39.cac he.html 95KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/7E3474503F94573F692DBA8DD87BFA9C.cac he.html 95KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/8CA2E60EAF91C3F19503B0164F5F4F9E.cac he.html 90B DeflatN 88B 2.3% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/9DA92932034707C17CFF15F95086D53F.cac he.png 93KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/DE13FF3F0794AFB1A58A0664B968C62C.cac he.html 1044B DeflatN 361B 65.5% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.css 282B DeflatN 188B 33.4% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.html 43B DeflatN 37B 14.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/clear.cache.gif 5686B DeflatN 2322B 59.2% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/com.google.gwt.benchmarks.viewer.Rep ortViewer.nocache.js 262B DeflatN 176B 32.9% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/gradient.gif 436B DeflatN 246B 43.6% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/history.html 1408B DeflatN 580B 58.9% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/hosted.html 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/client/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/server/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/keypoint/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/bc/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/bc/asn1/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/simpleparser/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/markup/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/postscript/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/wmf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/events/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/fonts/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/hyphenation/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/direct/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/output/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/field/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/graphic/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/headerfooter/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/list/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/style/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/table/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/text/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/xmp/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/arguments/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/treeview/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/config/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/log/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/modules/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/annotations/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/axis/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/block/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/demo/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/editor/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/encoders/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/entity/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/event/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/imagemap/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/labels/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/needle/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/plot/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/category/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/xy/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/resources/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/servlet/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/title/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/urls/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/util/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/category/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/contour/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/function/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/gantt/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/general/ -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:41 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subj... On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090407/ba17f4cf/attachment-0001.htm From allan.hardy at lmco.com Tue Apr 7 23:58:37 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:58:37 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093822CD@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Thanks I agree with all of that and better said then I obviously could have - Pointing to a 3rd party website is good, but not complaint - Section 6 isn't really where I was going, since the LGPL binary is bundled in, Section 4 is plain and simple - provide source You raise another point I wasn't even on, was if the requirement for end users to replace the LGPL product, without 'help' from google, is being met. It does seem we have the issue of pointing to a SVN repository meets the 'same as' principal. As an aside, I didn't know that posting here was so formal and I would have talked to the vendor off line if I was aware of the protocols. Allan -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Stephen C. Fedder Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:27 PM To: 'Daniel Berlin' Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included as binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which was why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively before starting a thread. I still think that the potential non-compliance should also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target directory on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by the user with another version compiled from source. Inclusion of the binaries in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated into the war being distributed. Providing a link to the website of the original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the application on. This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL software. Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or dynamically linked with the product, must still be provided. Section 6 is meant to specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral nature of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) of the library. It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the source code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the jfree chart package is included as binary class files. Since the class files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being embedded with an application). This makes it more problematic for an end user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing the beginning of the jfree distribution is below... Steve Viewing .ZIP: gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar Length Method Size Ratio Date Time Name ------ ------ ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p META-INF/ 106B DeflatN 94B 11.4% 10/16/2008 8:51p META-INF/MANIFEST.MF 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ 1155B DeflatN 280B 75.8% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/05E3350BE732DDDB3B85DD46FFD36640.gwt .rpc 96KB DeflatN 31KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/307379F5BC19B8D66A0E5854F18DD16C.cac he.html 92B DeflatN 90B 2.2% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/548CDF11D6FE9011F3447CA200D7FB7F.cac he.png 94KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/5593544A9B81C47D9C45D7495DD32D39.cac he.html 95KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/7E3474503F94573F692DBA8DD87BFA9C.cac he.html 95KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/8CA2E60EAF91C3F19503B0164F5F4F9E.cac he.html 90B DeflatN 88B 2.3% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/9DA92932034707C17CFF15F95086D53F.cac he.png 93KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/DE13FF3F0794AFB1A58A0664B968C62C.cac he.html 1044B DeflatN 361B 65.5% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.css 282B DeflatN 188B 33.4% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.html 43B DeflatN 37B 14.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/clear.cache.gif 5686B DeflatN 2322B 59.2% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/com.google.gwt.benchmarks.viewer.Rep ortViewer.nocache.js 262B DeflatN 176B 32.9% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/gradient.gif 436B DeflatN 246B 43.6% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/history.html 1408B DeflatN 580B 58.9% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/hosted.html 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/client/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/server/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/keypoint/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/bc/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/bc/asn1/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/simpleparser/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/markup/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/postscript/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/wmf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/events/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/fonts/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/hyphenation/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/direct/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/output/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/field/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/graphic/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/headerfooter/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/list/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/style/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/table/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/text/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/xmp/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/arguments/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/treeview/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/config/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/log/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/modules/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/annotations/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/axis/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/block/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/demo/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/editor/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/encoders/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/entity/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/event/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/imagemap/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/labels/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/needle/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/plot/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/category/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/xy/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/resources/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/servlet/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/title/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/urls/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/util/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/category/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/contour/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/function/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/gantt/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/general/ -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:41 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: >> Pardon me if I am out of line following this thread, but Google is already releasing GWT completely as open-source under Apache 2.0 license, so it is not as if they are not releasing source code for the product in question. ?Also it seems as if this whole thread would have not been necessary if the original writer would have gone to the extent of actually verifying that the LGPL package was in fact actually being distributed by examining the downloads before publicly accusing a company like Google which contributes a huge amount of software and resources as open-source of violating license. ?Even if a company appears to be in violation, it is always the best course to first pursue compliance with them directly rather than posting public accusations. ?It looks like the biggest thing that Google has done here is to have an erroneous, parhaps out of date, reference in some of their online documentation referring to LGPL packages that may be used with GWT by the end user being provided by Google. ?I'm pretty sure there is no legal action to be taken as a result of a mistake in documentation. >> > One of the GWT developers now tells me the jfreechart stuff is > actually in there, just buried fairly deep (it's in a .war file > contained in a .jar file somewhere) these days. > So I apparently misspoke on that point :) > That said, ... > >> I have seen plenty of threads before regarding use of GPL/LGPL in devices where the accuser is told that they need a distribution and positive proof, i.e. dumps > or listings showing the actual presence of GPL/LGPL code in a distributed product before posting an accusation. ?Stating that companies who actually do >> distribute LGPL binaries also need to post or otherwise make available corresponding source is just restating the license which anyone who follows this list >> should already know. > > So Mr Hardy's argument is essentially (as far as i understand it, > please correct me if i am wrong): > > Distribution of gwt with jfreechart jar files embedded in it is not a > "work that uses a library", instead gwt is the "work that uses the > library" and it happens to include jfreechart. ?IE he doesn't believe > the combined work is the work the LGPL is talking about in section 6 > Thus, we must comply with both section 6 (for the GWT work), and a > bunch of other sections for the jfreechart work. BTW, just to split this thread,, my reason for disagreement with him on this point simple. The LGPL (2.1) states "6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work ...." It clearly says "distribute *that* work" (emphasis mine) where "that" is referring to the combination of the LGPL'd library (jfreechart) and the "work that uses the library" (gwt). Thus, the work they are referring to as being granted exceptions to the other sections above is the combined work of GWT with jfreechart (whose combining "produce[d] a work containing portions of the Library"). He disagrees with this, and believes the inclusion of jfreechart jars in the work is not covered here. As I said however, whether I agree with him or not, we are still (AFAICT) in compliance in either case. --Dan From dannyb at google.com Wed Apr 8 00:07:40 2009 From: dannyb at google.com (Daniel Berlin) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:07:40 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093822CD@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093822CD@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <2fbe2a060904071507s4902884epf04f83283b8be6ea@mail.gmail.com> Since the entire source to gwt is available and provided to you, it meets another alternative of section 6 if you don't believe it meets 6b. Choose whichever makes you happy. As I've said numerous times, we do provide the source. If you are really going to argue that the jfreechart jar has to be available on the same download page, and not just in the same project, then we will simply have to agree to disagree. However, for the sake of ending this, I've asked the gwt folks to bundle source in the binary releases. This won't happen until the release after next (the release tonight is already frozen) We will not be rereleasing any prior releases this way. On Apr 7, 2009 5:59 PM, "Hardy, Allan" wrote: Thanks I agree with all of that and better said then I obviously could have - Pointing to a 3rd party website is good, but not complaint - Section 6 isn't really where I was going, since the LGPL binary is bundled in, Section 4 is plain and simple - provide source You raise another point I wasn't even on, was if the requirement for end users to replace the LGPL product, without 'help' from google, is being met. It does seem we have the issue of pointing to a SVN repository meets the 'same as' principal. As an aside, I didn't know that posting here was so formal and I would have talked to the vendor off line if I was aware of the protocols. Allan -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org[mailto: legal-bounces at list... Subject: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart libra... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090407/2ee86326/attachment.htm From sfedder at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 00:11:38 2009 From: sfedder at hotmail.com (Stephen C. Fedder) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:11:38 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904071450w79f4dda7ybc0bfd2762dc1a25@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com><1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com><231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com><49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk><2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com><49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk><2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com><2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071450w79f4dda7ybc0bfd2762dc1a25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Daniel, I just downloaded through svn the entire distribution from the google code page for GWT and the jfreechart source is not included in that distribution as far as I can tell, although it is referenced in the included classes. Is there a different svn source distribution I should be looking for other than the official one on the web? It does seem to look for a folder in the build to include these libraries from jar files, i.e. build.xml for the library I referenced: If the source for the LGPL is included in an svn distro, this should be noted/linked to in the licensed software notes in addition to the link to the jfree site to avoid these kind of questions. Steve _____ From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:51 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code We do provide the source archives for jfreechart, at the exact same place we provide the gwt downloads They are in the svn repository, rather than on the downloads page. We have done this since the first release of gwt The docs link to the original website not because you have to go there to get source, but because that is where it came from. On Apr 7, 2009 5:27 PM, "Stephen C. Fedder" wrote: Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included as binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which was why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively before starting a thread. I still think that the potential non-compliance should also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target directory on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by the user with another version compiled from source. Inclusion of the binaries in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated into the war being distributed. Providing a link to the website of the original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the application on. This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL software. Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or dynamically linked with the product, must still be provided. Section 6 is meant to specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral nature of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) of the library. It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the source code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the jfree chart package is included as binary class files. Since the class files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being embedded with an application). This makes it more problematic for an end user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing the beginning of the jfree distribution is below... Steve Viewing .ZIP: gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar Length Method Size Ratio Date Time Name ------ ------ ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p META-INF/ 106B DeflatN 94B 11.4% 10/16/2008 8:51p META-INF/MANIFEST.MF 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ 1155B DeflatN 280B 75.8% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/05E3350BE732DDDB3B85DD46FFD36640.gwt .rpc 96KB DeflatN 31KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/307379F5BC19B8D66A0E5854F18DD16C.cac he.html 92B DeflatN 90B 2.2% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/548CDF11D6FE9011F3447CA200D7FB7F.cac he.png 94KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/5593544A9B81C47D9C45D7495DD32D39.cac he.html 95KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/7E3474503F94573F692DBA8DD87BFA9C.cac he.html 95KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/8CA2E60EAF91C3F19503B0164F5F4F9E.cac he.html 90B DeflatN 88B 2.3% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/9DA92932034707C17CFF15F95086D53F.cac he.png 93KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/DE13FF3F0794AFB1A58A0664B968C62C.cac he.html 1044B DeflatN 361B 65.5% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.css 282B DeflatN 188B 33.4% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.html 43B DeflatN 37B 14.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/clear.cache.gif 5686B DeflatN 2322B 59.2% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/com.google.gwt.benchmarks.viewer.Rep ortViewer.nocache.js 262B DeflatN 176B 32.9% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/gradient.gif 436B DeflatN 246B 43.6% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/history.html 1408B DeflatN 580B 58.9% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/hosted.html 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/client/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/server/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/keypoint/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/bc/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/bc/asn1/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/simpleparser/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/markup/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/postscript/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/wmf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/events/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/fonts/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/hyphenation/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/direct/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/output/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/field/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/graphic/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/headerfooter/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/list/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/style/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/table/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/text/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/xmp/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/arguments/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/treeview/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/config/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/log/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/modules/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/annotations/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/axis/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/block/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/demo/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/editor/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/encoders/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/entity/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/event/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/imagemap/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/labels/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/needle/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/plot/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/category/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/xy/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/resources/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/servlet/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/title/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/urls/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/util/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/category/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/contour/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/function/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/gantt/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/general/ -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:41 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subj... On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090407/a0890ef1/attachment-0001.htm From allan.hardy at lmco.com Wed Apr 8 00:17:39 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:17:39 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071450w79f4dda7ybc0bfd2762dc1a25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609382303@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> I couldn't find it either And this: 'noted/linked to in the licensed software notes in addition to the link to the jfree site ' would go a long way to stop nuts like me from bothering you. I assume I would not need an svn client either, if one did the 'same as' requirement starts getting questionable for me. Allan From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Stephen C. Fedder Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 6:12 PM To: 'Daniel Berlin' Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: RE: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code Hi Daniel, I just downloaded through svn the entire distribution from the google code page for GWT and the jfreechart source is not included in that distribution as far as I can tell, although it is referenced in the included classes. Is there a different svn source distribution I should be looking for other than the official one on the web? It does seem to look for a folder in the build to include these libraries from jar files, i.e. build.xml for the library I referenced: If the source for the LGPL is included in an svn distro, this should be noted/linked to in the licensed software notes in addition to the link to the jfree site to avoid these kind of questions. Steve ________________________________ From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:51 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code We do provide the source archives for jfreechart, at the exact same place we provide the gwt downloads They are in the svn repository, rather than on the downloads page. We have done this since the first release of gwt The docs link to the original website not because you have to go there to get source, but because that is where it came from. On Apr 7, 2009 5:27 PM, "Stephen C. Fedder" wrote: Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included as binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which was why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively before starting a thread. I still think that the potential non-compliance should also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target directory on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by the user with another version compiled from source. Inclusion of the binaries in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated into the war being distributed. Providing a link to the website of the original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the application on. This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL software. Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or dynamically linked with the product, must still be provided. Section 6 is meant to specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral nature of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) of the library. It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the source code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the jfree chart package is included as binary class files. Since the class files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being embedded with an application). This makes it more problematic for an end user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing the beginning of the jfree distribution is below... Steve Viewing .ZIP: gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar Length Method Size Ratio Date Time Name ------ ------ ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p META-INF/ 106B DeflatN 94B 11.4% 10/16/2008 8:51p META-INF/MANIFEST.MF 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ 1155B DeflatN 280B 75.8% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/05E3350BE732DDDB3B85DD46FFD36640 .gwt .rpc 96KB DeflatN 31KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/307379F5BC19B8D66A0E5854F18DD16C .cac he.html 92B DeflatN 90B 2.2% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/548CDF11D6FE9011F3447CA200D7FB7F .cac he.png 94KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/5593544A9B81C47D9C45D7495DD32D39 .cac he.html 95KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/7E3474503F94573F692DBA8DD87BFA9C .cac he.html 95KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/8CA2E60EAF91C3F19503B0164F5F4F9E .cac he.html 90B DeflatN 88B 2.3% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/9DA92932034707C17CFF15F95086D53F .cac he.png 93KB DeflatN 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/DE13FF3F0794AFB1A58A0664B968C62C .cac he.html 1044B DeflatN 361B 65.5% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.css 282B DeflatN 188B 33.4% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.html 43B DeflatN 37B 14.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/clear.cache.gif 5686B DeflatN 2322B 59.2% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/com.google.gwt.benchmarks.viewer .Rep ortViewer.nocache.js 262B DeflatN 176B 32.9% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/gradient.gif 436B DeflatN 246B 43.6% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/history.html 1408B DeflatN 580B 58.9% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/hosted.html 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/client/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/server/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/keypoint/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/bc/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/bc/asn1/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/simpleparser/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/markup/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/postscript/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/wmf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/events/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/fonts/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/hyphenation/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/direct/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/output/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/field/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/graphic/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/headerfooter/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/list/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/style/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/table/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/text/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/xmp/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/arguments/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/treeview/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/config/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/log/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/base/modules/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/annotations/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/axis/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/block/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/demo/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/editor/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/encoders/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/entity/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/event/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/imagemap/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/labels/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/needle/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/plot/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/category/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/xy/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/resources/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/servlet/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/title/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/urls/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/chart/util/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/category/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/contour/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/function/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/gantt/ 0B Stored 0B 0.0% 10/16/2008 8:51p org/jfree/data/general/ -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:41 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subj... On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090407/919e2be7/attachment-0001.htm From dannyb at google.com Wed Apr 8 00:22:09 2009 From: dannyb at google.com (Daniel Berlin) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:22:09 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071450w79f4dda7ybc0bfd2762dc1a25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fbe2a060904071522w4553b024ja391a3e1713b5ea9@mail.gmail.com> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/#svn/tools/lib/jfreechart The wiki goes through why it's split like this, but i can have them move it to trunk if you want. On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > > I just downloaded through svn the entire distribution from the google code > page for GWT and the jfreechart source is not included in that distribution > as far as I can tell, although it is referenced in the included classes.? Is > there a different svn source distribution I should be looking for other than > the official one on the web? > > > > It does seem to look for a folder in the build to include these libraries > from jar files, i.e. build.xml for the library I referenced: > > > > ? > > ??? > > ????? > > ??? > > ??? > > ??? > > ??? file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jfreechart-1.0.3.jar" /> > > ??? file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jcommon-1.0.6.jar" /> > > ? > > > > If the source for the LGPL is included in an svn distro, this should be > noted/linked to in the licensed software notes in addition to the link to > the jfree site to avoid these kind of questions. > > > > Steve > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:51 PM > > To: Stephen C. Fedder > Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > > > We do provide the source archives for jfreechart, at the exact same place we > provide the gwt downloads > They are in the svn repository, rather than on the downloads page. We have > done this since the first release of gwt > The docs link to the original website not because you have to go there to > get source, but because that is where it came from. > > On Apr 7, 2009 5:27 PM, "Stephen C. Fedder" wrote: > > Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included as > binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which was > why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively before > starting a thread. ?I still think that the potential non-compliance should > also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public > complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. > > In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is > essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target directory > on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require > the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a > binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by the > user with another version compiled from source. ?Inclusion of the binaries > in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the > source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated > into the war being distributed. ?Providing a link to the website of the > original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and > provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions > they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the > application on. ?This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for > example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL > software. > > Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the > unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or dynamically > linked with the product, must still be provided. ?Section 6 is meant to > specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral nature > of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) of > the library. ?It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the source > code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. > (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). > > I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the > jfree chart package is included as binary class files. ?Since the class > files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library > is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be > distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being > embedded with an application). ?This makes it more problematic for an end > user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution > of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the > clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... > > The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing the > beginning of the jfree distribution is below... > > Steve > > Viewing .ZIP: gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar > > ?Length Method ? ? Size ?Ratio ? ?Date ? ? Time ?Name > ?------ ------ ? ? ---- ?----- ? ?---- ? ? ---- ?---- > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p META-INF/ > ? ?106B DeflatN ? ? ?94B 11.4% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p META-INF/MANIFEST.MF > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?7:23p com/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?7:23p com/google/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?7:23p com/google/gwt/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?7:23p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ > ? 1155B DeflatN ? ? 280B 75.8% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/05E3350BE732DDDB3B85DD46FFD36640.gwt > .rpc > ? ?96KB DeflatN ? ? 31KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/307379F5BC19B8D66A0E5854F18DD16C.cac > he.html > ? ? 92B DeflatN ? ? ?90B ?2.2% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/548CDF11D6FE9011F3447CA200D7FB7F.cac > he.png > ? ?94KB DeflatN ? ? 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/5593544A9B81C47D9C45D7495DD32D39.cac > he.html > ? ?95KB DeflatN ? ? 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/7E3474503F94573F692DBA8DD87BFA9C.cac > he.html > ? ?95KB DeflatN ? ? 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/8CA2E60EAF91C3F19503B0164F5F4F9E.cac > he.html > ? ? 90B DeflatN ? ? ?88B ?2.3% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/9DA92932034707C17CFF15F95086D53F.cac > he.png > ? ?93KB DeflatN ? ? 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/DE13FF3F0794AFB1A58A0664B968C62C.cac > he.html > ? 1044B DeflatN ? ? 361B 65.5% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.css > ? ?282B DeflatN ? ? 188B 33.4% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.html > ? ? 43B DeflatN ? ? ?37B 14.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/clear.cache.gif > ? 5686B DeflatN ? ?2322B 59.2% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/com.google.gwt.benchmarks.viewer.Rep > ortViewer.nocache.js > ? ?262B DeflatN ? ? 176B 32.9% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/gradient.gif > ? ?436B DeflatN ? ? 246B 43.6% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/history.html > ? 1408B DeflatN ? ? 580B 58.9% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/hosted.html > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/client/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/server/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/keypoint/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/bc/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/bc/asn1/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/html/simpleparser/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/markup/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/postscript/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/wmf/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/pdf/events/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/pdf/fonts/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/pdf/hyphenation/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/rtf/direct/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/output/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/rtf/field/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/rtf/graphic/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/rtf/headerfooter/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/list/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/rtf/style/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/text/rtf/table/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/text/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/xmp/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/tools/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/tools/arguments/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > com/lowagie/tools/plugins/treeview/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/base/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/base/config/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/base/log/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/base/modules/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > org/jfree/chart/annotations/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/axis/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/block/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/demo/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/editor/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/encoders/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/entity/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/event/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/imagemap/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/labels/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/needle/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/plot/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > org/jfree/chart/renderer/category/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p > org/jfree/chart/renderer/xy/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/resources/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/servlet/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/title/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/urls/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/util/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/category/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/contour/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/function/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/gantt/ > ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/general/ > > -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:41 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: > legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subj... > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1... From dannyb at google.com Wed Apr 8 00:32:42 2009 From: dannyb at google.com (Daniel Berlin) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:32:42 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904071522w4553b024ja391a3e1713b5ea9@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071450w79f4dda7ybc0bfd2762dc1a25@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071522w4553b024ja391a3e1713b5ea9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fbe2a060904071532q6c61619cma3c8fb553fced20e@mail.gmail.com> IE you have to checkout /tools instead of /trunk On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/#svn/tools/lib/jfreechart > > The wiki goes through why it's split like this, but i can have them > move it to trunk if you want. > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> >> >> I just downloaded through svn the entire distribution from the google code >> page for GWT and the jfreechart source is not included in that distribution >> as far as I can tell, although it is referenced in the included classes.? Is >> there a different svn source distribution I should be looking for other than >> the official one on the web? >> >> >> >> It does seem to look for a folder in the build to include these libraries >> from jar files, i.e. build.xml for the library I referenced: >> >> >> >> ? >> >> ??? >> >> ????? >> >> ??? >> >> ??? >> >> ??? >> >> ??? > file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jfreechart-1.0.3.jar" /> >> >> ??? > file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jcommon-1.0.6.jar" /> >> >> ? >> >> >> >> If the source for the LGPL is included in an svn distro, this should be >> noted/linked to in the licensed software notes in addition to the link to >> the jfree site to avoid these kind of questions. >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:51 PM >> >> To: Stephen C. Fedder >> Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >> Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >> >> >> >> We do provide the source archives for jfreechart, at the exact same place we >> provide the gwt downloads >> They are in the svn repository, rather than on the downloads page. We have >> done this since the first release of gwt >> The docs link to the original website not because you have to go there to >> get source, but because that is where it came from. >> >> On Apr 7, 2009 5:27 PM, "Stephen C. Fedder" wrote: >> >> Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included as >> binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which was >> why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively before >> starting a thread. ?I still think that the potential non-compliance should >> also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public >> complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. >> >> In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is >> essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target directory >> on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require >> the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a >> binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by the >> user with another version compiled from source. ?Inclusion of the binaries >> in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the >> source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated >> into the war being distributed. ?Providing a link to the website of the >> original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and >> provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions >> they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the >> application on. ?This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for >> example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL >> software. >> >> Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the >> unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or dynamically >> linked with the product, must still be provided. ?Section 6 is meant to >> specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral nature >> of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) of >> the library. ?It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the source >> code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. >> (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). >> >> I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the >> jfree chart package is included as binary class files. ?Since the class >> files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library >> is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be >> distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being >> embedded with an application). ?This makes it more problematic for an end >> user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution >> of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the >> clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... >> >> The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing the >> beginning of the jfree distribution is below... >> >> Steve >> >> Viewing .ZIP: gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar >> >> ?Length Method ? ? Size ?Ratio ? ?Date ? ? Time ?Name >> ?------ ------ ? ? ---- ?----- ? ?---- ? ? ---- ?---- >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p META-INF/ >> ? ?106B DeflatN ? ? ?94B 11.4% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p META-INF/MANIFEST.MF >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?7:23p com/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?7:23p com/google/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?7:23p com/google/gwt/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?7:23p com/google/gwt/benchmarks/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?7:23p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ >> ? 1155B DeflatN ? ? 280B 75.8% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/05E3350BE732DDDB3B85DD46FFD36640.gwt >> .rpc >> ? ?96KB DeflatN ? ? 31KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/307379F5BC19B8D66A0E5854F18DD16C.cac >> he.html >> ? ? 92B DeflatN ? ? ?90B ?2.2% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/548CDF11D6FE9011F3447CA200D7FB7F.cac >> he.png >> ? ?94KB DeflatN ? ? 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/5593544A9B81C47D9C45D7495DD32D39.cac >> he.html >> ? ?95KB DeflatN ? ? 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/7E3474503F94573F692DBA8DD87BFA9C.cac >> he.html >> ? ?95KB DeflatN ? ? 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/8CA2E60EAF91C3F19503B0164F5F4F9E.cac >> he.html >> ? ? 90B DeflatN ? ? ?88B ?2.3% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/9DA92932034707C17CFF15F95086D53F.cac >> he.png >> ? ?93KB DeflatN ? ? 30KB 67.7% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/DE13FF3F0794AFB1A58A0664B968C62C.cac >> he.html >> ? 1044B DeflatN ? ? 361B 65.5% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.css >> ? ?282B DeflatN ? ? 188B 33.4% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/ReportViewer.html >> ? ? 43B DeflatN ? ? ?37B 14.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/clear.cache.gif >> ? 5686B DeflatN ? ?2322B 59.2% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/com.google.gwt.benchmarks.viewer.Rep >> ortViewer.nocache.js >> ? ?262B DeflatN ? ? 176B 32.9% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/gradient.gif >> ? ?436B DeflatN ? ? 246B 43.6% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/history.html >> ? 1408B DeflatN ? ? 580B 58.9% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/public/hosted.html >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/client/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/google/gwt/benchmarks/viewer/server/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/keypoint/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/bc/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/bc/asn1/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/html/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/html/simpleparser/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/markup/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/pdf/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/postscript/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/wmf/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/pdf/events/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/pdf/fonts/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/pdf/hyphenation/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/rtf/direct/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/rtf/document/output/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/rtf/field/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/rtf/graphic/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/rtf/headerfooter/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/list/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/rtf/style/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/text/rtf/table/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/rtf/text/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/text/xml/xmp/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/tools/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/tools/arguments/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p com/lowagie/tools/plugins/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> com/lowagie/tools/plugins/treeview/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/base/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/base/config/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/base/log/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/base/modules/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> org/jfree/chart/annotations/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/axis/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/block/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/demo/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/editor/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/encoders/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/entity/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/event/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/imagemap/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/labels/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/needle/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/plot/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/renderer/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> org/jfree/chart/renderer/category/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p >> org/jfree/chart/renderer/xy/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/resources/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/servlet/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/title/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/urls/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/chart/util/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/category/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/contour/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/function/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/gantt/ >> ? ? ?0B Stored ? ? ? ?0B ?0.0% 10/16/2008 ?8:51p org/jfree/data/general/ >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:41 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: >> legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subj... >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1... > From sfedder at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 00:41:14 2009 From: sfedder at hotmail.com (Stephen C. Fedder) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:41:14 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904071522w4553b024ja391a3e1713b5ea9@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB327B.7000209@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070754v725a9a7bh9038b5699df3bba0@mail.gmail.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071450w79f4dda7ybc0bfd2762dc1a25@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071522w4553b024ja391a3e1713b5ea9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks, however at this address is the binary distributions, not the source distributions for jfreechart. I do see that for some of the other libraries in this tools/lib section that there are both source and binary distributions - I am guessing this is where you will post the corresponding source in the svn, correct? You should document this location in the COPYING file and license info online along with the link to jfree site. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 6:22 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/#svn/tools/lib/jfr eechart The wiki goes through why it's split like this, but i can have them move it to trunk if you want. On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > > I just downloaded through svn the entire distribution from the google code > page for GWT and the jfreechart source is not included in that distribution > as far as I can tell, although it is referenced in the included classes.? Is > there a different svn source distribution I should be looking for other than > the official one on the web? > > > > It does seem to look for a folder in the build to include these libraries > from jar files, i.e. build.xml for the library I referenced: > > > > ? > > ??? > > ????? > > ??? > > ??? > > ??? > > ??? file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jfreechart-1.0.3.jar" /> > > ??? file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jcommon-1.0.6.jar" /> > > ? > > > > If the source for the LGPL is included in an svn distro, this should be > noted/linked to in the licensed software notes in addition to the link to > the jfree site to avoid these kind of questions. ... > > > > Steve > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:51 PM > > To: Stephen C. Fedder > Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > > > We do provide the source archives for jfreechart, at the exact same place we > provide the gwt downloads > They are in the svn repository, rather than on the downloads page. We have > done this since the first release of gwt > The docs link to the original website not because you have to go there to > get source, but because that is where it came from. > > On Apr 7, 2009 5:27 PM, "Stephen C. Fedder" wrote: > > Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included as > binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which was > why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively before > starting a thread. ?I still think that the potential non-compliance should > also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public > complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. > > In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is > essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target directory > on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require > the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a > binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by the > user with another version compiled from source. ?Inclusion of the binaries > in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the > source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated > into the war being distributed. ?Providing a link to the website of the > original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and > provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions > they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the > application on. ?This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for > example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL > software. > > Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the > unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or dynamically > linked with the product, must still be provided. ?Section 6 is meant to > specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral nature > of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) of > the library. ?It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the source > code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. > (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). > > I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the > jfree chart package is included as binary class files. ?Since the class > files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library > is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be > distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being > embedded with an application). ?This makes it more problematic for an end > user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution > of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the > clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... > > The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing the > beginning of the jfree distribution is below... > > Steve ... From dannyb at google.com Wed Apr 8 00:55:32 2009 From: dannyb at google.com (Daniel Berlin) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:55:32 -0400 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <49DB6A28.8090600@lancaster.ac.uk> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071450w79f4dda7ybc0bfd2762dc1a25@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071522w4553b024ja391a3e1713b5ea9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fbe2a060904071555v52531983q693922c89a258c8d@mail.gmail.com> Yeah, someone accidently replaced it with the binary distro, i'll checkin the source again. On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: > Thanks, however at this address is the binary distributions, not the source > distributions for jfreechart. ?I do see that for some of the other libraries > in this tools/lib section that there are both source and binary > distributions - I am guessing this is where you will post the corresponding > source in the svn, correct? ?You should document this location in the > COPYING file and license info online along with the link to jfree site. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 6:22 PM > To: Stephen C. Fedder > Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code > > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/#svn/tools/lib/jfr > eechart > > The wiki goes through why it's split like this, but i can have them > move it to trunk if you want. > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Stephen C. Fedder > wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> >> >> I just downloaded through svn the entire distribution from the google code >> page for GWT and the jfreechart source is not included in that > distribution >> as far as I can tell, although it is referenced in the included classes. > Is >> there a different svn source distribution I should be looking for other > than >> the official one on the web? >> >> >> >> It does seem to look for a folder in the build to include these libraries >> from jar files, i.e. build.xml for the library I referenced: >> >> >> >> ? >> >> ??? >> >> ????? >> >> ??? >> >> ??? >> >> ??? >> >> ??? > file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jfreechart-1.0.3.jar" /> >> >> ??? > file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jcommon-1.0.6.jar" /> >> >> ? >> >> >> >> If the source for the LGPL is included in an svn distro, this should be >> noted/linked to in the licensed software notes in addition to the link to >> the jfree site to avoid these kind of questions. > > ... >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:51 PM >> >> To: Stephen C. Fedder >> Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >> Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >> >> >> >> We do provide the source archives for jfreechart, at the exact same place > we >> provide the gwt downloads >> They are in the svn repository, rather than on the downloads page. We have >> done this since the first release of gwt >> The docs link to the original website not because you have to go there to >> get source, but because that is where it came from. >> >> On Apr 7, 2009 5:27 PM, "Stephen C. Fedder" wrote: >> >> Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included > as >> binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which > was >> why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively > before >> starting a thread. ?I still think that the potential non-compliance should >> also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public >> complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. >> >> In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is >> essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target > directory >> on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require >> the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a >> binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by > the >> user with another version compiled from source. ?Inclusion of the binaries >> in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the >> source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated >> into the war being distributed. ?Providing a link to the website of the >> original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and >> provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions >> they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the >> application on. ?This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for >> example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL >> software. >> >> Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the >> unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or > dynamically >> linked with the product, must still be provided. ?Section 6 is meant to >> specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral > nature >> of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) > of >> the library. ?It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the > source >> code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. >> (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). >> >> I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the >> jfree chart package is included as binary class files. ?Since the class >> files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library >> is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be >> distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being >> embedded with an application). ?This makes it more problematic for an end >> user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution >> of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the >> clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... >> >> The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing > the >> beginning of the jfree distribution is below... >> >> Steve > ... > > From ard-gpl at kwaak.net Wed Apr 8 10:56:33 2009 From: ard-gpl at kwaak.net (ard) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:56:33 -0000 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> References: <7d9492d90904061347q6f8e87d1ra314b4c06572b155@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938155E@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061432l4419c4esefc819e5ce6b4602@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD778026093815BF@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904061540l10f65a48ibe38715e9512a410@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609381626@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <7d9492d90904061749j44b4fc6ei6739a6072c95aaa7@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938166B@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <1b752d540904062308u688000d8l17143ed208c6db1@mail.gmail.com> <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD7780260938168C@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <20090407170035.GQ9943@kwaak.net> Hi, Just to re-iterate what we are talking about: On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 03:25:02AM -0400, Hardy, Allan wrote: > Yes I'm concerned with being compliant as re-distributor of > OSS, and in this case GWT. The question is not about FUD, but is a simple legal one: If the google distribution is not compliant, then everybody else who redistribute that google distribution is also not compliant, and therefore liable. As Allan Hardy seems to run a business around open source (if I read the thread correctly), it is very damaging (reputation wise at least) if somebody claims he is not being compliant (when (re)distributing the google distribution). So yes, the question is a very valid one. I assume the spirit is already there. (And if not, frequent reminders will popup :-) ). -- .signature not found From dannyb at google.com Wed Apr 8 18:24:43 2009 From: dannyb at google.com (Daniel Berlin) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:24:43 -0000 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: <2fbe2a060904071555v52531983q693922c89a258c8d@mail.gmail.com> References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071450w79f4dda7ybc0bfd2762dc1a25@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071522w4553b024ja391a3e1713b5ea9@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071555v52531983q693922c89a258c8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fbe2a060904080924s612a9894n46c470a1dee6bfcb@mail.gmail.com> It's now been readded. http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=5196 (It appears to have been overwritten quite early, before gwt actually made it to svn and was still internal to google. Sigh.). On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Yeah, someone accidently replaced it with the binary distro, i'll > checkin the source again. > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: >> Thanks, however at this address is the binary distributions, not the source >> distributions for jfreechart. ?I do see that for some of the other libraries >> in this tools/lib section that there are both source and binary >> distributions - I am guessing this is where you will post the corresponding >> source in the svn, correct? ?You should document this location in the >> COPYING file and license info online along with the link to jfree site. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 6:22 PM >> To: Stephen C. Fedder >> Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >> Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >> >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/#svn/tools/lib/jfr >> eechart >> >> The wiki goes through why it's split like this, but i can have them >> move it to trunk if you want. >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Stephen C. Fedder >> wrote: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> >>> >>> I just downloaded through svn the entire distribution from the google code >>> page for GWT and the jfreechart source is not included in that >> distribution >>> as far as I can tell, although it is referenced in the included classes. >> Is >>> there a different svn source distribution I should be looking for other >> than >>> the official one on the web? >>> >>> >>> >>> It does seem to look for a folder in the build to include these libraries >>> from jar files, i.e. build.xml for the library I referenced: >>> >>> >>> >>> ? >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> ????? >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> ??? >> file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jfreechart-1.0.3.jar" /> >>> >>> ??? >> file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jcommon-1.0.6.jar" /> >>> >>> ? >>> >>> >>> >>> If the source for the LGPL is included in an svn distro, this should be >>> noted/linked to in the licensed software notes in addition to the link to >>> the jfree site to avoid these kind of questions. >> >> ... >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:51 PM >>> >>> To: Stephen C. Fedder >>> Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>> Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>> >>> >>> >>> We do provide the source archives for jfreechart, at the exact same place >> we >>> provide the gwt downloads >>> They are in the svn repository, rather than on the downloads page. We have >>> done this since the first release of gwt >>> The docs link to the original website not because you have to go there to >>> get source, but because that is where it came from. >>> >>> On Apr 7, 2009 5:27 PM, "Stephen C. Fedder" wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included >> as >>> binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which >> was >>> why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively >> before >>> starting a thread. ?I still think that the potential non-compliance should >>> also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public >>> complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. >>> >>> In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is >>> essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target >> directory >>> on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require >>> the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a >>> binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by >> the >>> user with another version compiled from source. ?Inclusion of the binaries >>> in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the >>> source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated >>> into the war being distributed. ?Providing a link to the website of the >>> original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and >>> provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions >>> they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the >>> application on. ?This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for >>> example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL >>> software. >>> >>> Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the >>> unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or >> dynamically >>> linked with the product, must still be provided. ?Section 6 is meant to >>> specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral >> nature >>> of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) >> of >>> the library. ?It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the >> source >>> code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. >>> (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). >>> >>> I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the >>> jfree chart package is included as binary class files. ?Since the class >>> files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library >>> is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be >>> distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being >>> embedded with an application). ?This makes it more problematic for an end >>> user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution >>> of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the >>> clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... >>> >>> The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing >> the >>> beginning of the jfree distribution is below... >>> >>> Steve >> ... >> >> > From sfedder at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 18:41:53 2009 From: sfedder at hotmail.com (Stephen C. Fedder) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:41:53 -0000 Subject: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code In-Reply-To: References: <231B442F8AB2B24AA15BF005FD77802609334FCE@emss09m10.us.lmco.com> <2fbe2a060904070934q71b0f6fasb919acf9131fbe45@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904070941gd020e62p10330af5221f0370@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071450w79f4dda7ybc0bfd2762dc1a25@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071522w4553b024ja391a3e1713b5ea9@mail.gmail.com> <2fbe2a060904071555v52531983q693922c89a258c8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks - just an oversight I'm sure since the source for almost every other package used is present in the tree. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:25 PM To: Stephen C. Fedder Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code It's now been readded. http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=5196 (It appears to have been overwritten quite early, before gwt actually made it to svn and was still internal to google. Sigh.). On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Yeah, someone accidently replaced it with the binary distro, i'll > checkin the source again. > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Stephen C. Fedder wrote: >> Thanks, however at this address is the binary distributions, not the source >> distributions for jfreechart. ?I do see that for some of the other libraries >> in this tools/lib section that there are both source and binary >> distributions - I am guessing this is where you will post the corresponding >> source in the svn, correct? ?You should document this location in the >> COPYING file and license info online along with the link to jfree site. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 6:22 PM >> To: Stephen C. Fedder >> Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >> Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >> >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/#svn/tools/lib/jfr >> eechart >> >> The wiki goes through why it's split like this, but i can have them >> move it to trunk if you want. >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Stephen C. Fedder >> wrote: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> >>> >>> I just downloaded through svn the entire distribution from the google code >>> page for GWT and the jfreechart source is not included in that >> distribution >>> as far as I can tell, although it is referenced in the included classes. >> Is >>> there a different svn source distribution I should be looking for other >> than >>> the official one on the web? >>> >>> >>> >>> It does seem to look for a folder in the build to include these libraries >>> from jar files, i.e. build.xml for the library I referenced: >>> >>> >>> >>> ? >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> ????? >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> ??? >> file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jfreechart-1.0.3.jar" /> >>> >>> ??? >> file="${gwt.tools.lib}/jfreechart/jcommon-1.0.6.jar" /> >>> >>> ? >>> >>> >>> >>> If the source for the LGPL is included in an svn distro, this should be >>> noted/linked to in the licensed software notes in addition to the link to >>> the jfree site to avoid these kind of questions. >> >> ... >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:51 PM >>> >>> To: Stephen C. Fedder >>> Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org >>> Subject: Re: RE: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code >>> >>> >>> >>> We do provide the source archives for jfreechart, at the exact same place >> we >>> provide the gwt downloads >>> They are in the svn repository, rather than on the downloads page. We have >>> done this since the first release of gwt >>> The docs link to the original website not because you have to go there to >>> get source, but because that is where it came from. >>> >>> On Apr 7, 2009 5:27 PM, "Stephen C. Fedder" wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, I was not aware that the jfree chart library was actually included >> as >>> binary files, and no-one had mentioned this before in the thread, which >> was >>> why I commented that it would be helpful to know that fact positively >> before >>> starting a thread. ?I still think that the potential non-compliance should >>> also be conveyed/discussed with the vendor before bringing up a public >>> complaint, as these things tend to often get blown out of proportion. >>> >>> In the case that the product is included in the war distribution, which is >>> essentially an archive/aggregation that is unpacked to the target >> directory >>> on the server, I would agree that this inclusion (IANAL) does not require >>> the package under the GPL, as would directly linking source code in a >>> binary, since the jfreechart jar file could still easily be replaced by >> the >>> user with another version compiled from source. ?Inclusion of the binaries >>> in the war does mean that there is a requirement to provide access to the >>> source code for the version(s) of the LGPL binaries that are incorporated >>> into the war being distributed. ?Providing a link to the website of the >>> original distribution is good, however to comply, companies archive and >>> provide LGPL source file distributions for any past binary distributions >>> they have used in a binary form on the same site they distribute the >>> application on. ?This could just be a conglomerate L/GPL source site, for >>> example, covering all applications fielded by the company using L/GPL >>> software. >>> >>> Section 6. of LGPL 2.1 does specifically state that the source for the >>> unmodified or modified LGPL library, even if just aggregated or >> dynamically >>> linked with the product, must still be provided. ?Section 6 is meant to >>> specifically allow use of the software as a library without the viral >> nature >>> of GPL infecting software that merely uses the standard interfaces (API) >> of >>> the library. ?It does not remove the responsibility to distribute the >> source >>> code for the library in any case where an object-only form is distributed. >>> (anyone here please correct me if I'm wrong). >>> >>> I do see in the file gwt-benchmark-viewer.jar in the distribution that the >>> jfree chart package is included as binary class files. ?Since the class >>> files are actually embedded in a jar, not just the war itself, the library >>> is not actually being used as a separate package (LGPL would usually be >>> distributed as a separate jar file rather than the class files being >>> embedded with an application). ?This makes it more problematic for an end >>> user to recompile and replace the jfree package in the binary distribution >>> of the application, which is a large part of the "freedom" afforded by the >>> clauses in the LGPL - someone help me out here... >>> >>> The start of a listing of the a jar file in the GWT distribution showing >> the >>> beginning of the jfree distribution is below... >>> >>> Steve >> ... >> >> > From vinz.focker at gmail.com Wed Apr 15 14:51:05 2009 From: vinz.focker at gmail.com (Vinz Focker) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:51:05 -0000 Subject: GooerRDP for iPhone - GPL violation Message-ID: <4b126e1e0904150528q3c953c00l554c917351627762@mail.gmail.com> Hi! Company Gooer offers a remote desktop service (similar to LogMeIn et al.) based on the RDP protocol. Recently they have released an iPhone / iPod Touch client in the Apple App Store called 'GooerRDP'. This app is free (they charge for the service though) and the binary clearly reveals that it contains code from several GPL'd software projects: WinAdmin, rdesktop and CoRD which are all GPL'd RDP clients for different platforms. After downloading the app to the Mac/PC using iTunes you can grep for the rdesktop/CoRD/WinAdmin symbol names and you will find tons of matches: Global rdesktop variables, iso/tcp/mcs/rdp layer functions, common object file names, etc. Neither in the app store page nor in the included documentation or on the web site Gooer writes that their product contains GPL software. They do not make the source code available and they do not include a written offer to the source. Of course I first wrote to Gooer and gave them a chance to avoid public disclosure of the issue but I did not get any answer except from autoreplies which thanked me for my interest in their services. Here are some links: Gooer web site: http://www.gooer.com Gooer iPhone page (only linked from the iPhone app): http://www.gooer.com/iphone/ iTunes Store-URL: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=308568112&mt=8 A copy of the iTunes Store-URL page that does not require iTunes to read: http://appshopper.com/utilities/gooerrdp Best regards, Vinz From ninuxpdb at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 13:47:34 2009 From: ninuxpdb at gmail.com (paolo del bene) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:47:34 -0000 Subject: Fwd: mysql In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290904270437ra9a3ed1g5b7a70e1e58101cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <7dc12d290904270437ra9a3ed1g5b7a70e1e58101cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7dc12d290904270439t571be2ccxe45a9825acdd9537@mail.gmail.com> i got a question for you: how is posible that mysql has got 2 licenses ? the first one is the GNU General Public License and then it has got a proprietary EULA. a free software, can be at the same time proprietary ? for me not awaiting your reply, hapy hacking paolo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090427/92b35456/attachment.html