Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

[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.

-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 <allan.hardy at 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 <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
> 
>  
> 
> 

-- 
--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.