Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

Mon Apr 6 23:17:14 CEST 2009

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 <allan.hardy at lmco.com> 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 <cdibona at gmail.com> 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 <allan.hardy at lmco.com>
> 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