Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

[Hardy, Allan]

Daniel,

>> You claim we are required in such a case to make a written offer, and cannot simply link to the source, which is also incorrect.

I do not make that claim, I really didn't.  I do not understand why I am being misunderstood here, my apologizes if I am a bad writer.  I really would like to find common ground and agreement.  As I said If I am wrong I really am more interested in finding that out then protecting my ego etc.


If its not just t0o much back and forth - this is a summary below

**MY CLAIMS
If you provide the LGPL Binary you have 3 options to provide source 
- 6a - ship it
- 6c - written offer
- 6d - same manner/same website

- What you cannot do is tell people to go get source a the LGPL Products website, JFreeChart website in this case.  Pointing to some other website is not an allowed way to fulfill your source requirement. This is an important point to my argument

- What you cannot do is provide the binary and then claim a 6b model and do not have to provide source

None of the above is what you are actually doing I am just trying to get on the same page

Are we set up top this point?


**DOCUMENTION ERRORS
The GWT License file says that JFreeChart is included in the binary 
Error1 - it is not, but it says it is an that's what started me on the tortuous road

It also says that the sources are provided at google 'or as or as otherwise indicated at the bottom of this page'
At the bottom of the page it says go to jfreechart's website
This is what set me off.  You cannot tell people to go somewhere else for source. It is not an allowed way to fulfill your source requirement. 

What about the source being at google site?  First, I read as  'google site OR as noted below' - which I read as its not at google site when I saw the direction to go to JFreeChart. 
Error2 - Perhaps my way of reading.  If it had read: 'at google's site AND as noted below' I would not have made the wrong leap.

Of course this is all mute because the documentation is wrong, the binary is not included.


***WHAT IFS
Ok, now if we want to discuss what ifs, what if the documentation wasn't wrong and jFreeChart binary was bundled in
- The pointing someone to JFreeChart website for source is wrong

But would putting the source at the google site be enough, would it fulfill under 6d?
I am going to argue no because its not equivalent access.  SVN repositories are NOT the same manner and click and download from the project page.  
But we are I the weeds here and while I would love to  argue this academically, it might be to off topic.
It certainly would not be a reason why I would open a post at GPL-Violations with the title I did.


***Redistribution
As an Re-distributor I have the same obligations and the same options in regards to source code
I cannot use your written offer - 6c 
I cannot use your download site - 6d (I cant tell people to go get source at google)

So I like 6a approaches.  
Right?






-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dannyb at google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:03 AM
To: Hardy, Allan
Cc: Klas Skogmar; chris at dibona.com; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Hardy, Allan <allan.hardy at lmco.com> 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.


Let's assume everything you say is true (I still very heavily disagree
with your interpretation for reasons i've stated multiple times).

You claim we are required in such a case to make a written offer, and
cannot simply link to the source, which is also incorrect.
>From section 4 as you quoted: " If distribution of object code is made
by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering
equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place
satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though
third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the
object code. "

We offer equivalent access to the copy of the source code in the same
place we offer access to the object code, e.g.
code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit
If you look at the source repo, you will see jfreechart is there (and
has been since 2007)
(It doesn't matter that the docs point to jfreechart's site, since
section 4 has no technical requirement that you point to the place the
source is available, only that it be available in the same place as
the object code).

So again, can you please explain exactly which portions of which
section make you think we have to provide a written offer for source
and that our current
--Dan