Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

[Stephen C. Fedder]

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  It looks like the biggest thing that Google has done here is to have an erroneous, parhaps out of date, reference in some of their online documentation referring to LGPL packages that may be used with GWT by the end user being provided by Google.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 <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.