Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

[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 <allan.hardy at lmco.com> 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 <allan.hardy at lmco.com> 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