Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

[mp]

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 <m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk> 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 <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.
>>
> 

-- 
--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.