Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

[Daniel Berlin]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Stephen C. Fedder <sfedder at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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  It looks like the biggest thing that Google has done here is to have an erroneous, parhaps out of date, reference in some of their online documentation referring to LGPL packages that may be used with GWT by the end user being provided by Google.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.
>
One of the GWT developers now tells me the jfreechart stuff is
actually in there, just buried fairly deep (it's in a .war file
contained in a .jar file somewhere) these days.
So I apparently misspoke on that point :)
That said, ...

> 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.

So Mr Hardy's argument is essentially (as far as i understand it,
please correct me if i am wrong):

Distribution of gwt with jfreechart jar files embedded in it is not a
"work that uses a library", instead gwt is the "work that uses the
library" and it happens to include jfreechart.  IE he doesn't believe
the combined work is the work the LGPL is talking about in section 6
Thus, we must comply with both section 6 (for the GWT work), and a
bunch of other sections for the jfreechart work.

He further believes the only way for compliance with these other
sections it to provide the source *with the binaries we distribute*,
or provide an offer for source.

I happen to disagree strongly with his argument about what the
combined "work that uses the library" consists of, but even assuming I
didn't, I can't find any support for portions of his view of what is
required to comply in the LGPL.
In particular, section 4 specifically allows distribution of source
from the same place we distribute object files (which we do). This is
true of both jfreechart and gwt, so even if you took his view of what
the works here are, AFAICT, we would still be in compliance.

Further, the only section that allows an offer for source is section 6
and since he thinks jfreechart is a separate work, its distribution
wouldn't fall under section 6 (since it is not a "work that uses the
library" linked in with the library), so I don't see how an offer for
source would ever be allowed for works like GWT under his viewpoint.

All of that said, as far as I know, we are happily in compliance with
the LGPL since we meet all the requirements under either his view, or
mine.

Along the way I accidentally put a single word in quotes and he seems
to have taken it personally, when it was a simple mistake (there is a
lot of quoting in these emails, it was completely unintentional) for
which I apologize.

--Dan