From sebastian at expires1209.datenknoten.de Sat Aug 1 23:48:54 2009 From: sebastian at expires1209.datenknoten.de (Sebastian) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:48:54 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80907310604m3ca937e7w40d88511a2119d37@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <30dfe2a80907310604m3ca937e7w40d88511a2119d37@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1249163334.4750.0.camel@coruscant> Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 09:04 -0400 schrieb Thomas Charron: > You're pretty much spot on. But it's not an exception. If it's > under the LGPL you're golden. If it's GPL, you have to give something > back to use it with your app (in the form of your source). To understand this better: If I dynamically link with a LGPL library, I can distribute proprietary software as long as I allow modification (of the binary code) and reverse engineering of my proprietary software. And I have to mention that I use the LPGL'ed library. Is this correct? But in order to provide full functionality, I have to distribute the LGPL libraries also. Do I then have to distribute the source of the library also? So if I write proprietary software for an embedded system which uses glibc, will I have to include glibc sources when I sell the embedded system to customers? Thanks! Sebastian From josv at osp.nl Sun Aug 2 00:30:58 2009 From: josv at osp.nl (Jos Visser) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 00:30:58 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <1249163334.4750.0.camel@coruscant> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <30dfe2a80907310604m3ca937e7w40d88511a2119d37@mail.gmail.com> <1249163334.4750.0.camel@coruscant> Message-ID: <20090801223058.GE476@DeepSpace-X.local> Hi Sebastian, If you dynamically link against an LGPL library you can distribute your "closed source" application. You do need to provide a way for a user to use a modified version of the LGPL library with your proprietary application. If you use dynamic linking that is relatively easy and there is nothing you have to do. If you use static linking it becomes less obvious and you might be obliged to provide your app in object form together with a Makefile that does the linking step. If you distribute the LGPL library (in compiled form; for instance together with your app) you need to adhere to the (L)GPL, and offer the source of the LGPL library to the recipient (either put it on the distribution media or make it available otherwise). Life gets slightly harder if you modify the LGPL-licensed library and use+distribute the modified version in your app. ++Jos.ch On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:48:54PM +0200 it came to pass that Sebastian wrote: > Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 09:04 -0400 schrieb Thomas Charron: > > You're pretty much spot on. But it's not an exception. If it's > > under the LGPL you're golden. If it's GPL, you have to give something > > back to use it with your app (in the form of your source). > > > To understand this better: > > If I dynamically link with a LGPL library, I can distribute proprietary > software as long as I allow modification (of the binary code) and > reverse engineering of my proprietary software. And I have to mention > that I use the LPGL'ed library. Is this correct? > > But in order to provide full functionality, I have to distribute the > LGPL libraries also. Do I then have to distribute the source of the > library also? > > So if I write proprietary software for an embedded system which uses > glibc, will I have to include glibc sources when I sell the embedded > system to customers? > > Thanks! > > Sebastian > > > > -- No one ever dreams and lives... From ninuxpdb at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 10:23:27 2009 From: ninuxpdb at gmail.com (paolo del bene) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:23:27 +0200 Subject: Fwd: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> GNU/linux is an operating system free software, why you must to develop a non free software ? happy hacking Paolo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090803/9aceb2a3/attachment.htm From allan.hardy at lmco.com Mon Aug 3 15:05:58 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:05:58 -0400 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <20090801223058.GE476@DeepSpace-X.local> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <30dfe2a80907310604m3ca937e7w40d88511a2119d37@mail.gmail.com> <1249163334.4750.0.camel@coruscant> <20090801223058.GE476@DeepSpace-X.local> Message-ID: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE446CA4092B0@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> >>(either put it on the distribution media or make it available otherwise). Just to add to that We always provide source with binaries. In that form you are only required to provide the source to that one customer. If you make it available as an 'offer' (come to my website, call me, email me, ....,) you are required to make that available to the public for I believe 3 years. As an aside, you can't fulfill this obligation by pointing to another website, the project page, etc. Since you cant be sure your 3 year, publically available requirement can be met by this 3rd party. You could cut a contract with the 3rd party to make it available on your behalf. Anyway, these are the rules/guidelines we operate under. Allan -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Jos Visser Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 6:31 PM To: Sebastian Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? Hi Sebastian, If you dynamically link against an LGPL library you can distribute your "closed source" application. You do need to provide a way for a user to use a modified version of the LGPL library with your proprietary application. If you use dynamic linking that is relatively easy and there is nothing you have to do. If you use static linking it becomes less obvious and you might be obliged to provide your app in object form together with a Makefile that does the linking step. If you distribute the LGPL library (in compiled form; for instance together with your app) you need to adhere to the (L)GPL, and offer the source of the LGPL library to the recipient (either put it on the distribution media or make it available otherwise). Life gets slightly harder if you modify the LGPL-licensed library and use+distribute the modified version in your app. ++Jos.c On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:48:54PM +0200 it came to pass that Sebastian wrote: > Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 09:04 -0400 schrieb Thomas Charron: > > You're pretty much spot on. But it's not an exception. If it's > > under the LGPL you're golden. If it's GPL, you have to give something > > back to use it with your app (in the form of your source). > > > To understand this better: > > If I dynamically link with a LGPL library, I can distribute proprietary > software as long as I allow modification (of the binary code) and > reverse engineering of my proprietary software. And I have to mention > that I use the LPGL'ed library. Is this correct? > > But in order to provide full functionality, I have to distribute the > LGPL libraries also. Do I then have to distribute the source of the > library also? > > So if I write proprietary software for an embedded system which uses > glibc, will I have to include glibc sources when I sell the embedded > system to customers? > > Thanks! > > Sebastian > > > > -- No one ever dreams and lives... From ninuxpdb at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 16:24:51 2009 From: ninuxpdb at gmail.com (paolo del bene) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:24:51 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> 2009/8/4 Chris Were > The same reason people build non-free cars, sell non-free food, and > wear non-free clothes Paolo. Its my job... :) > > And I know its a heated argument out there but i don't think its > GNU/linux, its just linux. > > Cheers, > chris > I am sorry for you, but GNU/linux is the operating system, linux is only a kernel, i think to start to write a book about kernel, microkernel, who partecipate to the develop, where, why and who is taking advantages with the old microkernels.... It will be a job that i want to publish under the GNU Free Documentation License. To develop and build non free cars, sell non free food and wear non free clothes is not good and this create only division between people and restriction of their freedom. So to develop non free software is not a good thing. I am happy that you made the example of food, why i listened years ago Richard Matthew Stallman speaking about food and he said that any is free to do its own cacke, adding or removing things don't like us. For example to prepare an Apple Pie, any person is free to add more ingredients to offer to more people. ;-) For example "The Pastiera Napoletana" is made with ricotta and candied fruit, but no one forbids us to add the example of pieces of chocolate, this would be impossible if the recipe was made with a CopyRight, this has the same and the same effect on non free software, because you can not in any way modify :-( And this is not good for a community, this is not good for nobody, to do money with free software: "watch RedHat" that has got a little of Ethic, why it sold itself to microsoft, when decided to introduce KVM. I don't know if you are able to read Italian Language: but if you are able i invite you to read: http://paolodelbene.pbworks.com/hacking and http://paolodelbene.pbworks.com/FrontPage Society and sharing with neighbour is more important of money, why you are building walls which divide people, you don't help people to share and to learn how to use a software, how to modify.... you are inviting people only to do drug and drop, copy, paste, cut. People with non free software must to pray "plug&pray" that non free software works fine. But there are other example more importants such as: time to develop a software, high costs, and the ability to develop a non free software entirely on their own, which is very difficult. So is more easy to partecipate to the develop of a free software having the possibility to access to the source code, why people import their knowledge, and so any user is free to partecipate, there are not restrictions about software, why the software which they are developping is free software, costs are more less low, and any has got the FREEDOM to use as any want, to distribute the software, to do changes, to modify, to do manuals, guides under the GNU Free Documentation License, to sell cd's with a good service of assistance. This is the difference between a non free software (the users have not any access to the source code) and free software (full access to the source code), to grant Freedom to any user, things that non free software can not to do. http://www.gnu.org What is GNU? The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. GNU's kernel isn't finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux. The combination of GNU and Linux is the *GNU/Linux operating system*, now used by millions. Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are many variants or ?distributions? of GNU/Linux. We recommend the GNU/Linux distributionsthat are 100% free software; in other words, entirely freedom-respecting . The name ?GNU? is a recursive acronym for ?GNU's Not Unix!?; it is pronounced *g-noo*, as one syllable with no vowel sound between the *g* and the *n*. What is Free Software? ?Free software ? is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ?free? as in ?free speech?, not as in ?free beer?. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Copyright ? 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation , Inc. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved. Last Updated: $Date: 2009/07/30 12:20:00 $ invite to watch: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html about Free Beer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_beer about Free Coke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola_(drink) about Free Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OScar_(open_source_car) if you want Free Wear i can sell you as you want for example T-shirts of fsf.org, ninux.org and many others. you must only to order and then you have them, so as you can see is not true that there are not Free drinks, Cars and Wear. a minimum of 10 T-shirts and payment with transfer banking without paypal, i don't use it why is a non free method of payment. happy hacking Paolo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090804/5781f4c1/attachment.htm From armijn at uulug.nl Tue Aug 4 16:48:01 2009 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:48:01 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1249397281.2554.50.camel@hibbert.loco> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 16:24 +0200, paolo del bene wrote: > > The same reason people build non-free cars, sell non-free food, and > > wear non-free clothes Paolo. Its my job... :) > > > > And I know its a heated argument out there but i don't think its > > GNU/linux, its just linux. > > > > Cheers, > > chris > > > > I am sorry for you, but GNU/linux is the operating system, linux is > only a > kernel, i think to start to write a book about kernel, microkernel, > who > partecipate to the develop, where, why and who is taking advantages > with the > old microkernels.... I am sorry for you, but a lot of embedded systems don't use things from the GNU project, like uClibc (not a part of GNU), busybox (not a part of GNU) and so on. And this has nothing to do with licensing anymore, so let's stop this discussion here, hmkay? armijn -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From ninuxpdb at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 01:49:38 2009 From: ninuxpdb at gmail.com (paolo del bene) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:49:38 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <6c99ee590908041524v548b759fr34c5484d6b33cee6@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908041524v548b759fr34c5484d6b33cee6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7dc12d290908041649r28b183d6o7c6bd82b0e0fc935@mail.gmail.com> Today you company can develop a non free software, with all the restrictions of classic CopyRight, but any person can do the reverse engineering, read the source code, and decide to develop a free software, which does the same things, but has not one row of code that you zeland company wrote. So you and your company can not to do nothing, because that software, is free software, has not any portion of code and did the same thing of you non free software Hahaha ! i say Paolo 2009/8/5 Chris Were > Haha! Paolo I applaud your idealism, and thank you for your lessons. > There's much I do not know in this field, however consider this: > > We are a small company in new zealand manufacturing steel cutting > machinery, with a touchscreen controller. Our controller is a windows > applicaion and needs a servo card to drive motors. We want to move to > a new platform, eliminate the servo card, go real time in the OS. We > can do this at least technically with windows or linux. > > We could do an opensource controller under linux (or windows if we > chose for that matter), but we as a company would be signing our own > death warrant. The biggest thing which makes people buy our machines > over our bigger multinational competitors is the quality of our > controller, ease of use of it user interface, and flexibilty which > allows us to do allsorts of odd things with our machines. If this > fell into the competitors hands we would lose this advantage, and > eventually the business would likely fail. > > I would guess then that you would recommend to stick with windows, so > as not to taint GNU/linux with commercialism, and I sympathize with > that point of view. However clearly many other companies have built > proprietary, closed source applications on linux, so it is already > somehwat "impure". Further in a vertical market such as ours, if we > comply with GPL, distribute all the OS and distribution source, and > our proprietary object-only application (which I now believe is > legally OK so long as we do it properly), then we are still increasing > the awareness of opensource and the GNU projects, and we still have an > income. > > Anyway we still have not decided how to proceed. We are evaluating > RTX and Intime, windows realtime versions, as well as linux variants. > > My point is that we live in a commercial world, for better or for > worse, rooted in the exchange of commodities, chief of which is money. > "Knowledge" is another important commodity, includng intellectual > property etc, and they are tradeable. Yes, its a flawed system, but > it is a reality. The very computers your GNU software is developed > and written on would not exist without this model. > > Right, I'd better get back to hacking- not sure how to classify this > on my timsheet! :) > > Chris > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:24 AM, paolo del bene wrote: > > > > > > 2009/8/4 Chris Were > >> > >> The same reason people build non-free cars, sell non-free food, and > >> wear non-free clothes Paolo. Its my job... :) > >> > >> And I know its a heated argument out there but i don't think its > >> GNU/linux, its just linux. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> chris > > > > I am sorry for you, but GNU/linux is the operating system, linux is only > a > > kernel, i think to start to write a book about kernel, microkernel, who > > partecipate to the develop, where, why and who is taking advantages with > the > > old microkernels.... > > > > It will be a job that i want to publish under the GNU Free Documentation > > License. > > > > To develop and build non free cars, sell non free food and wear non free > > clothes is not good and this create only division between people and > > restriction of their freedom. > > > > So to develop non free software is not a good thing. > > > > I am happy that you made the example of food, why i listened years ago > > Richard Matthew Stallman speaking about food and he said that any is free > to > > do its own cacke, adding or removing things don't like us. > > > > For example to prepare an Apple Pie, any person is free to add more > > ingredients to offer to more people. ;-) > > > > For example "The Pastiera Napoletana" is made with ricotta and candied > > fruit, but no one forbids us to add the example of pieces of chocolate, > this > > would be impossible if the recipe was made with a CopyRight, this has the > > same and the same effect on non free software, because you can not in any > > way modify :-( > > > > And this is not good for a community, this is not good for nobody, to do > > money with free software: "watch RedHat" that has got a little of Ethic, > why > > it sold itself to microsoft, when decided to introduce KVM. > > > > I don't know if you are able to read Italian Language: but if you are > able i > > invite you to read: http://paolodelbene.pbworks.com/hacking and > > http://paolodelbene.pbworks.com/FrontPage > > > > Society and sharing with neighbour is more important of money, why you > are > > building walls which divide people, you don't help people to share and to > > learn how to use a software, how to modify.... you are inviting people > only > > to do drug and drop, copy, paste, cut. > > > > People with non free software must to pray "plug&pray" that non free > > software works fine. > > > > But there are other example more importants such as: time to develop a > > software, high costs, and the ability to develop a non free software > > entirely on their own, which is very difficult. > > > > So is more easy to partecipate to the develop of a free software having > the > > possibility to access to the source code, why people import their > knowledge, > > and so any user is free to partecipate, there are not restrictions about > > software, why the software which they are developping is free software, > > costs are more less low, and any has got the FREEDOM to use as any want, > to > > distribute the software, to do changes, to modify, to do manuals, guides > > under the GNU Free Documentation License, to sell cd's with a good > service > > of assistance. > > > > This is the difference between a non free software (the users have not > any > > access to the source code) and free software (full access to the source > > code), to grant Freedom to any user, things that non free software can > not > > to do. > > > > http://www.gnu.org > > > > What is GNU? > > > > The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like > > operating system which is free software: the GNU system. > > > > GNU's kernel isn't finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux. The > > combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system, now used > by > > millions. > > > > Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are many > > variants or ?distributions? of GNU/Linux. > > > > We recommend the GNU/Linux distributions that are 100% free software; in > > other words, entirely freedom-respecting. > > > > The name ?GNU? is a recursive acronym for ?GNU's Not Unix!?; it is > > pronounced g-noo, as one syllable with no vowel sound between the g and > the > > n. > > > > What is Free Software? > > > > ?Free software? is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the > > concept, you should think of ?free? as in ?free speech?, not as in ?free > > beer?. > > > > Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, > > study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four > > kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: > > > > The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > > The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs > > (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. > > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom > > 2). > > The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the > > public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the > > source code is a precondition for this. > > > > Copyright ? 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, > > 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > > > Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted > > worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the > > copyright notice, are preserved. > > > > Last Updated: $Date: 2009/07/30 12:20:00 $ > > > > invite to watch: > > > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html > > > > about Free Beer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_beer > > about Free Coke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola_(drink) > > about Free Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OScar_(open_source_car) > > > > if you want Free Wear i can sell you as you want for example T-shirts of > > fsf.org, ninux.org and many others. > > > > you must only to order and then you have them, so as you can see is not > true > > that there are not Free drinks, Cars and Wear. > > > > > > a minimum of 10 T-shirts and payment with transfer banking without > paypal, i > > don't use it why is a non free method of payment. > > > > happy hacking > > > > Paolo > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090805/ba37b4be/attachment-0001.htm From ninuxpdb at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 02:08:28 2009 From: ninuxpdb at gmail.com (paolo del bene) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 02:08:28 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <1249397281.2554.50.camel@hibbert.loco> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> <1249397281.2554.50.camel@hibbert.loco> Message-ID: <7dc12d290908041708q54f07fc2rf0a5e94aa2ac2e00@mail.gmail.com> I am sorry for you but time ago, busybox was violated, and you can imangine which is its own license: http://www.busybox.net/license.html BusyBox is licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2about ?Clinux i can tell you that is GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, but they have not say which version, i suppose is the version 2 as i found on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/library.txt but i think that is better to ask to Erik Andersen Please invite Erik Andersen to clarify which GNU Library General Public License they actually are using. 2009/8/4 Armijn Hemel > On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 16:24 +0200, paolo del bene wrote: > > > The same reason people build non-free cars, sell non-free food, and > > > wear non-free clothes Paolo. Its my job... :) > > > > > > And I know its a heated argument out there but i don't think its > > > GNU/linux, its just linux. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > chris > > > > > > > I am sorry for you, but GNU/linux is the operating system, linux is > > only a > > kernel, i think to start to write a book about kernel, microkernel, > > who > > partecipate to the develop, where, why and who is taking advantages > > with the > > old microkernels.... > > I am sorry for you, but a lot of embedded systems don't use things from > the GNU project, like uClibc (not a part of GNU), busybox (not a part of > GNU) and so on. > > And this has nothing to do with licensing anymore, so let's stop this > discussion here, hmkay? > > armijn > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090805/17deb988/attachment.htm From hub at figuiere.net Wed Aug 5 04:33:04 2009 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:33:04 -0400 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290908041708q54f07fc2rf0a5e94aa2ac2e00@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> <1249397281.2554.50.camel@hibbert.loco> <7dc12d290908041708q54f07fc2rf0a5e94aa2ac2e00@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A78EF60.3080205@figuiere.net> On 08/04/2009 08:08 PM, paolo del bene wrote: > I am sorry for you but time ago, busybox was violated, and you can imangine > which is its own license: http://www.busybox.net/license.html The use of the GNU Public License does not make a project part a the GNU project. And vice-versa. Please don't amalgamate everything. This is sliding *off topic*. Hub From josv at osp.nl Wed Aug 5 07:46:54 2009 From: josv at osp.nl (Jos Visser) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:46:54 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290908041649r28b183d6o7c6bd82b0e0fc935@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908041524v548b759fr34c5484d6b33cee6@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908041649r28b183d6o7c6bd82b0e0fc935@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090805054654.GO476@DeepSpace-X.local> Paolo, Your point is clear, but you have to respect that many people (and/or organizations) do not agree with everything you say and support a different interpretation of the value of open source. Writing closed source software is an individual or corporate decision and the purpose of open source licenses is to spell out exactly what is and what is not allowed. Mixing closed and open source software in one system is quite possible and (from my point of view) helps in the adoption and spread of Linux, so (again, from my point of view) that is Good(tm), For what it's worth I think that Chris's mail makes perfect sense and I wish them all the best in building their new controller based on open source software. I think it's smart of them to do so, and even smarter to come to the list and try to seek some guidance on licensing issues. If only all folks in similar positions would do so. You might not agree with them and you can always start your own company that creates steel cutting machinery completely based on open source hard- and software (the controller included). Even if you do not agree with them then at least respect their decision to do whatever it is they want to do and let's keep the list free of religious discussions which are fun, but pointless. Kind regards, Jos Visser On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 01:49:38AM +0200 it came to pass that paolo del bene wrote: > Today you company can develop a non free software, with all the restrictions > of classic CopyRight, but any person can do the reverse engineering, read > the source code, and decide to develop a free software, which does the same > things, but has not one row of code that you zeland company wrote. > > So you and your company can not to do nothing, because that software, is > free software, has not any portion of code and did the same thing of you non > free software > > Hahaha ! i say > > Paolo > > 2009/8/5 Chris Were > > > Haha! Paolo I applaud your idealism, and thank you for your lessons. > > There's much I do not know in this field, however consider this: > > > > We are a small company in new zealand manufacturing steel cutting > > machinery, with a touchscreen controller. Our controller is a windows > > applicaion and needs a servo card to drive motors. We want to move to > > a new platform, eliminate the servo card, go real time in the OS. We > > can do this at least technically with windows or linux. > > > > We could do an opensource controller under linux (or windows if we > > chose for that matter), but we as a company would be signing our own > > death warrant. The biggest thing which makes people buy our machines > > over our bigger multinational competitors is the quality of our > > controller, ease of use of it user interface, and flexibilty which > > allows us to do allsorts of odd things with our machines. If this > > fell into the competitors hands we would lose this advantage, and > > eventually the business would likely fail. > > > > I would guess then that you would recommend to stick with windows, so > > as not to taint GNU/linux with commercialism, and I sympathize with > > that point of view. However clearly many other companies have built > > proprietary, closed source applications on linux, so it is already > > somehwat "impure". Further in a vertical market such as ours, if we > > comply with GPL, distribute all the OS and distribution source, and > > our proprietary object-only application (which I now believe is > > legally OK so long as we do it properly), then we are still increasing > > the awareness of opensource and the GNU projects, and we still have an > > income. > > > > Anyway we still have not decided how to proceed. We are evaluating > > RTX and Intime, windows realtime versions, as well as linux variants. > > > > My point is that we live in a commercial world, for better or for > > worse, rooted in the exchange of commodities, chief of which is money. > > "Knowledge" is another important commodity, includng intellectual > > property etc, and they are tradeable. Yes, its a flawed system, but > > it is a reality. The very computers your GNU software is developed > > and written on would not exist without this model. > > > > Right, I'd better get back to hacking- not sure how to classify this > > on my timsheet! :) > > > > Chris > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:24 AM, paolo del bene wrote: > > > > > > > > > 2009/8/4 Chris Were > > >> > > >> The same reason people build non-free cars, sell non-free food, and > > >> wear non-free clothes Paolo. Its my job... :) > > >> > > >> And I know its a heated argument out there but i don't think its > > >> GNU/linux, its just linux. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> chris > > > > > > I am sorry for you, but GNU/linux is the operating system, linux is only > > a > > > kernel, i think to start to write a book about kernel, microkernel, who > > > partecipate to the develop, where, why and who is taking advantages with > > the > > > old microkernels.... > > > > > > It will be a job that i want to publish under the GNU Free Documentation > > > License. > > > > > > To develop and build non free cars, sell non free food and wear non free > > > clothes is not good and this create only division between people and > > > restriction of their freedom. > > > > > > So to develop non free software is not a good thing. > > > > > > I am happy that you made the example of food, why i listened years ago > > > Richard Matthew Stallman speaking about food and he said that any is free > > to > > > do its own cacke, adding or removing things don't like us. > > > > > > For example to prepare an Apple Pie, any person is free to add more > > > ingredients to offer to more people. ;-) > > > > > > For example "The Pastiera Napoletana" is made with ricotta and candied > > > fruit, but no one forbids us to add the example of pieces of chocolate, > > this > > > would be impossible if the recipe was made with a CopyRight, this has the > > > same and the same effect on non free software, because you can not in any > > > way modify :-( > > > > > > And this is not good for a community, this is not good for nobody, to do > > > money with free software: "watch RedHat" that has got a little of Ethic, > > why > > > it sold itself to microsoft, when decided to introduce KVM. > > > > > > I don't know if you are able to read Italian Language: but if you are > > able i > > > invite you to read: http://paolodelbene.pbworks.com/hacking and > > > http://paolodelbene.pbworks.com/FrontPage > > > > > > Society and sharing with neighbour is more important of money, why you > > are > > > building walls which divide people, you don't help people to share and to > > > learn how to use a software, how to modify.... you are inviting people > > only > > > to do drug and drop, copy, paste, cut. > > > > > > People with non free software must to pray "plug&pray" that non free > > > software works fine. > > > > > > But there are other example more importants such as: time to develop a > > > software, high costs, and the ability to develop a non free software > > > entirely on their own, which is very difficult. > > > > > > So is more easy to partecipate to the develop of a free software having > > the > > > possibility to access to the source code, why people import their > > knowledge, > > > and so any user is free to partecipate, there are not restrictions about > > > software, why the software which they are developping is free software, > > > costs are more less low, and any has got the FREEDOM to use as any want, > > to > > > distribute the software, to do changes, to modify, to do manuals, guides > > > under the GNU Free Documentation License, to sell cd's with a good > > service > > > of assistance. > > > > > > This is the difference between a non free software (the users have not > > any > > > access to the source code) and free software (full access to the source > > > code), to grant Freedom to any user, things that non free software can > > not > > > to do. > > > > > > http://www.gnu.org > > > > > > What is GNU? > > > > > > The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like > > > operating system which is free software: the GNU system. > > > > > > GNU's kernel isn't finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux. The > > > combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system, now used > > by > > > millions. > > > > > > Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are many > > > variants or ?distributions? of GNU/Linux. > > > > > > We recommend the GNU/Linux distributions that are 100% free software; in > > > other words, entirely freedom-respecting. > > > > > > The name ?GNU? is a recursive acronym for ?GNU's Not Unix!?; it is > > > pronounced g-noo, as one syllable with no vowel sound between the g and > > the > > > n. > > > > > > What is Free Software? > > > > > > ?Free software? is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the > > > concept, you should think of ?free? as in ?free speech?, not as in ?free > > > beer?. > > > > > > Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, > > > study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four > > > kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: > > > > > > The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > > > The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs > > > (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. > > > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom > > > 2). > > > The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the > > > public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the > > > source code is a precondition for this. > > > > > > Copyright ? 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, > > > 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > > > > > Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted > > > worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the > > > copyright notice, are preserved. > > > > > > Last Updated: $Date: 2009/07/30 12:20:00 $ > > > > > > invite to watch: > > > > > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html > > > > > > about Free Beer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_beer > > > about Free Coke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola_(drink) > > > about Free Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OScar_(open_source_car) > > > > > > if you want Free Wear i can sell you as you want for example T-shirts of > > > fsf.org, ninux.org and many others. > > > > > > you must only to order and then you have them, so as you can see is not > > true > > > that there are not Free drinks, Cars and Wear. > > > > > > > > > a minimum of 10 T-shirts and payment with transfer banking without > > paypal, i > > > don't use it why is a non free method of payment. > > > > > > happy hacking > > > > > > Paolo > > > > > > > > -- No one ever dreams and lives... From armijn at uulug.nl Wed Aug 5 10:00:45 2009 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:00:45 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290908041708q54f07fc2rf0a5e94aa2ac2e00@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> <1249397281.2554.50.camel@hibbert.loco> <7dc12d290908041708q54f07fc2rf0a5e94aa2ac2e00@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1249459245.2542.4.camel@cletus.local> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 02:08 +0200, paolo del bene wrote: > I am sorry for you but time ago, busybox was violated, and you can > imangine > which is its own license: http://www.busybox.net/license.html No shit... > BusyBox is licensed under the GNU General Public License, version > 2about > ?Clinux i can tell you that is GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, but > they > have not say which version, i suppose is the version 2 as i found on > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/library.txt but i think that > is > better to ask to Erik Andersen > > Please invite Erik Andersen to clarify which GNU Library General > Public > License they actually are using. But it is not part of the GNU *project*, which was my entire point. Now, this has nothing to do with licensing, just with religion and boneheadedness, so let's stop the discussion, ok? armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From ninuxpdb at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 12:00:36 2009 From: ninuxpdb at gmail.com (paolo del bene) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:00:36 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <1249459245.2542.4.camel@cletus.local> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> <1249397281.2554.50.camel@hibbert.loco> <7dc12d290908041708q54f07fc2rf0a5e94aa2ac2e00@mail.gmail.com> <1249459245.2542.4.camel@cletus.local> Message-ID: <7dc12d290908050300j44abe5d8x77ba0a0e6342f2c5@mail.gmail.com> 2009/8/5 Armijn Hemel > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 02:08 +0200, paolo del bene wrote: > > I am sorry for you but time ago, busybox was violated, and you can > > imangine > > which is its own license: http://www.busybox.net/license.html > > No shit... > > > BusyBox is licensed under the GNU General Public License, version > > 2about > > ?Clinux i can tell you that is GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, but > > they > > have not say which version, i suppose is the version 2 as i found on > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/library.txt but i think that > > is > > better to ask to Erik Andersen > > > > Please invite Erik Andersen to clarify which GNU Library General > > Public > > License they actually are using. > > But it is not part of the GNU *project*, which was my entire point. Now, > this has nothing to do with licensing, just with religion and > boneheadedness, so let's stop the discussion, ok? > > armijn > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > you are doing all yourself, you started, not i, remember this -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090805/8c8de143/attachment.htm From josv at osp.nl Wed Aug 5 12:09:49 2009 From: josv at osp.nl (Jos Visser) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:09:49 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290908050300j44abe5d8x77ba0a0e6342f2c5@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> <1249397281.2554.50.camel@hibbert.loco> <7dc12d290908041708q54f07fc2rf0a5e94aa2ac2e00@mail.gmail.com> <1249459245.2542.4.camel@cletus.local> <7dc12d290908050300j44abe5d8x77ba0a0e6342f2c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090805100949.GF12323@DeepSpace-X.local> Let's all agree that it is Armijn's fault, and keep it at that. ++Jos.ch On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:00:36PM +0200 it came to pass that paolo del bene wrote: > 2009/8/5 Armijn Hemel > > > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 02:08 +0200, paolo del bene wrote: > > > I am sorry for you but time ago, busybox was violated, and you can > > > imangine > > > which is its own license: http://www.busybox.net/license.html > > > > No shit... > > > > > BusyBox is licensed under the GNU General Public License, version > > > 2about > > > ?Clinux i can tell you that is GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, but > > > they > > > have not say which version, i suppose is the version 2 as i found on > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/library.txt but i think that > > > is > > > better to ask to Erik Andersen > > > > > > Please invite Erik Andersen to clarify which GNU Library General > > > Public > > > License they actually are using. > > > > But it is not part of the GNU *project*, which was my entire point. Now, > > this has nothing to do with licensing, just with religion and > > boneheadedness, so let's stop the discussion, ok? > > > > armijn > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > you are doing all yourself, you started, not i, remember this -- No one ever dreams and lives... From ninuxpdb at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 12:22:47 2009 From: ninuxpdb at gmail.com (paolo del bene) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:22:47 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290908050321i6053cc3bm41e8e5d2501d28ee@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908041524v548b759fr34c5484d6b33cee6@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908041649r28b183d6o7c6bd82b0e0fc935@mail.gmail.com> <20090805054654.GO476@DeepSpace-X.local> <7dc12d290908050321i6053cc3bm41e8e5d2501d28ee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7dc12d290908050322vc30b93dtc66c383cb44f092d@mail.gmail.com> ask to Richard Matthew Stallman if Free Software is only a question of > Religion, i think that he replies to you :-) > > Free Software is Not a question of Religion ! is a question of FREEDOM :-) > Freedom, that Open Source can't grant you. :-( > > Free Software and Open Source Software have not nothing in common. > > Free Software uses the: GNU General Public License or any other compatible > with itself. > > Open Source uses other licenses that normally are not GNU. > > Free Software: Stallman discusses Free Software and GPLv3 > Fedrico Biancuzzi > http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/04/stallman-discusses-free-softwa.html > 13/04/2009 > Fedrico Biancuzzi f.biancuzzi at oltrelinux.com > > Open Source: We Don't Need the GPL Anymore interview to Eric S Raymond from > Federico Biancuzzi > http://onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html?page=last > 30/06/2005 > Federico Biancuzzi f.biancuzzi at oltrelinux.com > > > 2009/8/5 Jos Visser > > Paolo, >> >> Your point is clear, but you have to respect that many people (and/or >> organizations) do not agree with everything you say and support a >> different interpretation of the value of open source. Writing closed >> source software is an individual or corporate decision and the purpose >> of open source licenses is to spell out exactly what is and what is not >> allowed. Mixing closed and open source software in one system is quite >> possible and (from my point of view) helps in the adoption and spread of >> Linux, so (again, from my point of view) that is Good(tm), >> >> For what it's worth I think that Chris's mail makes perfect sense and I >> wish them all the best in building their new controller based on open >> source software. I think it's smart of them to do so, and even smarter >> to come to the list and try to seek some guidance on licensing issues. >> If only all folks in similar positions would do so. >> >> You might not agree with them and you can always start your own company >> that creates steel cutting machinery completely based on open source >> hard- and software (the controller included). >> >> Even if you do not agree with them then at least respect their decision >> to do whatever it is they want to do and let's keep the list free of >> religious discussions which are fun, but pointless. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Jos Visser >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 01:49:38AM +0200 it came to pass that paolo del >> bene wrote: >> > Today you company can develop a non free software, with all the >> restrictions >> > of classic CopyRight, but any person can do the reverse engineering, >> read >> > the source code, and decide to develop a free software, which does the >> same >> > things, but has not one row of code that you zeland company wrote. >> > >> > So you and your company can not to do nothing, because that software, is >> > free software, has not any portion of code and did the same thing of you >> non >> > free software >> > >> > Hahaha ! i say >> > >> > Paolo >> > >> > 2009/8/5 Chris Were >> > >> > > Haha! Paolo I applaud your idealism, and thank you for your lessons. >> > > There's much I do not know in this field, however consider this: >> > > >> > > We are a small company in new zealand manufacturing steel cutting >> > > machinery, with a touchscreen controller. Our controller is a windows >> > > applicaion and needs a servo card to drive motors. We want to move to >> > > a new platform, eliminate the servo card, go real time in the OS. We >> > > can do this at least technically with windows or linux. >> > > >> > > We could do an opensource controller under linux (or windows if we >> > > chose for that matter), but we as a company would be signing our own >> > > death warrant. The biggest thing which makes people buy our machines >> > > over our bigger multinational competitors is the quality of our >> > > controller, ease of use of it user interface, and flexibilty which >> > > allows us to do allsorts of odd things with our machines. If this >> > > fell into the competitors hands we would lose this advantage, and >> > > eventually the business would likely fail. >> > > >> > > I would guess then that you would recommend to stick with windows, so >> > > as not to taint GNU/linux with commercialism, and I sympathize with >> > > that point of view. However clearly many other companies have built >> > > proprietary, closed source applications on linux, so it is already >> > > somehwat "impure". Further in a vertical market such as ours, if we >> > > comply with GPL, distribute all the OS and distribution source, and >> > > our proprietary object-only application (which I now believe is >> > > legally OK so long as we do it properly), then we are still increasing >> > > the awareness of opensource and the GNU projects, and we still have an >> > > income. >> > > >> > > Anyway we still have not decided how to proceed. We are evaluating >> > > RTX and Intime, windows realtime versions, as well as linux variants. >> > > >> > > My point is that we live in a commercial world, for better or for >> > > worse, rooted in the exchange of commodities, chief of which is money. >> > > "Knowledge" is another important commodity, includng intellectual >> > > property etc, and they are tradeable. Yes, its a flawed system, but >> > > it is a reality. The very computers your GNU software is developed >> > > and written on would not exist without this model. >> > > >> > > Right, I'd better get back to hacking- not sure how to classify this >> > > on my timsheet! :) >> > > >> > > Chris >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:24 AM, paolo del bene >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 2009/8/4 Chris Were >> > > >> >> > > >> The same reason people build non-free cars, sell non-free food, and >> > > >> wear non-free clothes Paolo. Its my job... :) >> > > >> >> > > >> And I know its a heated argument out there but i don't think its >> > > >> GNU/linux, its just linux. >> > > >> >> > > >> Cheers, >> > > >> chris >> > > > >> > > > I am sorry for you, but GNU/linux is the operating system, linux is >> only >> > > a >> > > > kernel, i think to start to write a book about kernel, microkernel, >> who >> > > > partecipate to the develop, where, why and who is taking advantages >> with >> > > the >> > > > old microkernels.... >> > > > >> > > > It will be a job that i want to publish under the GNU Free >> Documentation >> > > > License. >> > > > >> > > > To develop and build non free cars, sell non free food and wear non >> free >> > > > clothes is not good and this create only division between people and >> > > > restriction of their freedom. >> > > > >> > > > So to develop non free software is not a good thing. >> > > > >> > > > I am happy that you made the example of food, why i listened years >> ago >> > > > Richard Matthew Stallman speaking about food and he said that any is >> free >> > > to >> > > > do its own cacke, adding or removing things don't like us. >> > > > >> > > > For example to prepare an Apple Pie, any person is free to add more >> > > > ingredients to offer to more people. ;-) >> > > > >> > > > For example "The Pastiera Napoletana" is made with ricotta and >> candied >> > > > fruit, but no one forbids us to add the example of pieces of >> chocolate, >> > > this >> > > > would be impossible if the recipe was made with a CopyRight, this >> has the >> > > > same and the same effect on non free software, because you can not >> in any >> > > > way modify :-( >> > > > >> > > > And this is not good for a community, this is not good for nobody, >> to do >> > > > money with free software: "watch RedHat" that has got a little of >> Ethic, >> > > why >> > > > it sold itself to microsoft, when decided to introduce KVM. >> > > > >> > > > I don't know if you are able to read Italian Language: but if you >> are >> > > able i >> > > > invite you to read: http://paolodelbene.pbworks.com/hacking and >> > > > http://paolodelbene.pbworks.com/FrontPage >> > > > >> > > > Society and sharing with neighbour is more important of money, why >> you >> > > are >> > > > building walls which divide people, you don't help people to share >> and to >> > > > learn how to use a software, how to modify.... you are inviting >> people >> > > only >> > > > to do drug and drop, copy, paste, cut. >> > > > >> > > > People with non free software must to pray "plug&pray" that non free >> > > > software works fine. >> > > > >> > > > But there are other example more importants such as: time to develop >> a >> > > > software, high costs, and the ability to develop a non free software >> > > > entirely on their own, which is very difficult. >> > > > >> > > > So is more easy to partecipate to the develop of a free software >> having >> > > the >> > > > possibility to access to the source code, why people import their >> > > knowledge, >> > > > and so any user is free to partecipate, there are not restrictions >> about >> > > > software, why the software which they are developping is free >> software, >> > > > costs are more less low, and any has got the FREEDOM to use as any >> want, >> > > to >> > > > distribute the software, to do changes, to modify, to do manuals, >> guides >> > > > under the GNU Free Documentation License, to sell cd's with a good >> > > service >> > > > of assistance. >> > > > >> > > > This is the difference between a non free software (the users have >> not >> > > any >> > > > access to the source code) and free software (full access to the >> source >> > > > code), to grant Freedom to any user, things that non free software >> can >> > > not >> > > > to do. >> > > > >> > > > http://www.gnu.org >> > > > >> > > > What is GNU? >> > > > >> > > > The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like >> > > > operating system which is free software: the GNU system. >> > > > >> > > > GNU's kernel isn't finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux. >> The >> > > > combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system, now >> used >> > > by >> > > > millions. >> > > > >> > > > Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are >> many >> > > > variants or ?distributions? of GNU/Linux. >> > > > >> > > > We recommend the GNU/Linux distributions that are 100% free >> software; in >> > > > other words, entirely freedom-respecting. >> > > > >> > > > The name ?GNU? is a recursive acronym for ?GNU's Not Unix!?; it is >> > > > pronounced g-noo, as one syllable with no vowel sound between the g >> and >> > > the >> > > > n. >> > > > >> > > > What is Free Software? >> > > > >> > > > ?Free software? is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the >> > > > concept, you should think of ?free? as in ?free speech?, not as in >> ?free >> > > > beer?. >> > > > >> > > > Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, >> distribute, >> > > > study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to >> four >> > > > kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: >> > > > >> > > > The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). >> > > > The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your >> needs >> > > > (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. >> > > > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor >> (freedom >> > > > 2). >> > > > The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to >> the >> > > > public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to >> the >> > > > source code is a precondition for this. >> > > > >> > > > Copyright ? 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, >> 2005, >> > > > 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> > > > >> > > > Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are >> permitted >> > > > worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and >> the >> > > > copyright notice, are preserved. >> > > > >> > > > Last Updated: $Date: 2009/07/30 12:20:00 $ >> > > > >> > > > invite to watch: >> > > > >> > > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >> > > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html >> > > > >> > > > about Free Beer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_beer >> > > > about Free Coke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola_(drink) >> >> > > > about Free Car >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OScar_(open_source_car) >> >> > > > >> > > > if you want Free Wear i can sell you as you want for example >> T-shirts of >> > > > fsf.org, ninux.org and many others. >> > > > >> > > > you must only to order and then you have them, so as you can see is >> not >> > > true >> > > > that there are not Free drinks, Cars and Wear. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > a minimum of 10 T-shirts and payment with transfer banking without >> > > paypal, i >> > > > don't use it why is a non free method of payment. >> > > > >> > > > happy hacking >> > > > >> > > > Paolo >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> -- >> No one ever dreams and lives... >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090805/c4090fe0/attachment-0001.htm From Reinhard at m4x.de Wed Aug 5 12:56:21 2009 From: Reinhard at m4x.de (Reinhard Max) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:56:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290908050322vc30b93dtc66c383cb44f092d@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7dc12d290908030121x707132d0k59bef41d44e63a67@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908030123q29be6e62i4bea1e3c3c130199@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908032041t6ed239ffmd2ad97d424a9b3d4@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908040724i4ddef00dt7b4b86f6058e615c@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590908041524v548b759fr34c5484d6b33cee6@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908041649r28b183d6o7c6bd82b0e0fc935@mail.gmail.com> <20090805054654.GO476@DeepSpace-X.local> <7dc12d290908050321i6053cc3bm41e8e5d2501d28ee@mail.gmail.com> <7dc12d290908050322vc30b93dtc66c383cb44f092d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 at 12:22, paolo del bene wrote: > ask to Richard Matthew Stallman if Free Software is only a question > of Religion, i think that he replies to you :-) please stop this discussion or continue it outside of this list. The original question was whether it is allowed to write and sell proprietary software that runs under Linux (which I am deliberately not calling GNU/Linux), and the answer to that is "Yes, as long as no code is used which has a license that forbids linking to proprietary code". Everything else is outside the scope of this list, which is for discussing *legal* questions around the GPL and not for political, ideological, or religious (call it whatever you like) discussions about the pros and cons of the different development and licensing models that exist. And yes, Paolo, it was *you* who took this discussion off topic by starting an inappropriate religious flamewar at a point where the questions had already been answered and the thread could have ended. We've all heared and understood your opinions, so please stop it now! Thanks, Reinhard From ice at extreme.hu Wed Aug 5 15:45:50 2009 From: ice at extreme.hu (Tamas TEVESZ) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:45:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: how to comply question Message-ID: hello, i'd like to get some advice in the following matter. there's an open source project, which, as a part of it's build framework, relies on a couple of gpl tools (coreutils pieces, make, stuff like that). to make life easier for users, binaries of these tools for some not-so-fortunate platforms (dos, os/2 and the like -- you get the idea) are included in the source repository. it turns out that for some of the stuff, we don't even know or can find a location for a source package. removing these binaries is thought to create a "support nightmare" of sorts, even with pointers and documentation stating "you need to get it, do so here and here". including source packages is somewhere in the source repo is partially possible (as said, for some binaries we don't know a source), but we still can't be perfectly sure (though a certain level of confidence is there) whatever sources we include will match the binaries we include - point is, we aren't really in the coreutils "business", just including them so our users don't have to be in the coreutils business either ;) what would be the appropriate course of action to take? advice is much appreciated. thanks, -- [-] mkdir /nonexistent From eagle at cyberdelia.de Thu Aug 6 08:46:38 2009 From: eagle at cyberdelia.de (Daniel Meyer) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:46:38 +0200 Subject: MacroSystem DVC1000 Message-ID: <4A7A7C4E.4020907@cyberdelia.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, are there any current activities regarding MacroSystem? They sell a home theatre system called DVC1000. I just checked the "firmware" of that system (because we have such a system and having ssh access would be really nice to fix some performance issues). It's using grub and vmlinuz-2.6.28.5, and there are two ext3 filesystems in the firmware. One of them seems to contain a Debian/Lenny system. There is no mentioning of the GPL within the ISO image, and searching the pdf manual of the DVC1000 for "GPL" or "Linux" has no results, searching for "GNU" just reveals several hits for the word "maGNUm". On their website they have a copyright-page wich is rather outdated (last modification in 2002): http://www.macrosystem.de/d/imprint_copyright.html Nothing about the DVC1000 or the debian system they're using there. I wrote a email to support at macrosystems.de for guidance on how to get the gpl sources of the DVC1000 firmware, and I'm going to doublecheck that there is no written offer in the box that I might have missed so far. Danny - -- There is infinite time. = http://www.cyberdelia.de You are finite. = eagle at cyberdelia.de Zathras is finite. = This is wrong tool. = \o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkp6fE4ACgkQCa/LtJGgW5HIugCeMo41fXfzjS4xACkm0g9hhZgv JT8AnAicCujQIDpM5eZgtrzzOGG6qUAd =L4ci -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From clemens at ladisch.de Thu Aug 6 10:34:22 2009 From: clemens at ladisch.de (Clemens Ladisch) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:34:22 +0200 Subject: MacroSystem DVC1000 In-Reply-To: <4A7A7C4E.4020907@cyberdelia.de> References: <4A7A7C4E.4020907@cyberdelia.de> Message-ID: <4A7A958E.90006@ladisch.de> Daniel Meyer wrote: > It's using grub and vmlinuz-2.6.28.5, Could you determine the kernel configuration, or which modules are shipped? > and there are two ext3 filesystems in the firmware. One of them seems > to contain a Debian/Lenny system. Please determine which programs/packages are in there. > I'm going to doublecheck that there is no written offer in the box > that I might have missed so far. I'd guess the manual is identical to the PDF, which says: | GLIBC und andere Zusatzprogramme fallen unter die | Lizenzbedingungen der Free Software Foundation. Detailinformationen | hierzu finden sich auf der MacroSystem Web-Seite. Well ... nice try. > On their website they have a copyright-page wich is rather outdated > (last modification in 2002): > http://www.macrosystem.de/d/imprint_copyright.html According to the HTTP headers, that page was last modified on Tuesday (2009-08-04). Best regards, Clemens From eagle at cyberdelia.de Thu Aug 6 10:54:57 2009 From: eagle at cyberdelia.de (Daniel Meyer) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:54:57 +0200 Subject: MacroSystem DVC1000 In-Reply-To: <4A7A958E.90006@ladisch.de> References: <4A7A7C4E.4020907@cyberdelia.de> <4A7A958E.90006@ladisch.de> Message-ID: <4A7A9A61.6040108@cyberdelia.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Clemens Ladisch wrote: > Daniel Meyer wrote: >> It's using grub and vmlinuz-2.6.28.5, > Could you determine the kernel configuration, or which modules are > shipped? There is a config-file which can be found on /dev/sda3 (thats the /boot partition of the system). I've put it on my webspace: http://www.scriptkiddies.de/stuff/config-2.6.28.5 >> and there are two ext3 filesystems in the firmware. One of them seems >> to contain a Debian/Lenny system. > Please determine which programs/packages are in there. Here is the output of "dpkg --get-selections": http://www.scriptkiddies.de/stuff/packagelist.txt Someone (not me) has published the update/recovery DVD: http://www.macrosystem-download.eu.tf/ One can download it, unpack the partimange-files and mount the partition to verify my findings. > I'd guess the manual is identical to the PDF, which says: > | GLIBC und andere Zusatzprogramme fallen unter die > | Lizenzbedingungen der Free Software Foundation. Detailinformationen > | hierzu finden sich auf der MacroSystem Web-Seite. > > Well ... nice try. Especially the term "andere Zusatzprogramme" (for the non-german-speaking-people: The statement roughly translates to "GLIBC and other additional programs are subject to license agreements of the free software foundation. Detailed information can be found on the MacroSystem website"). >> On their website they have a copyright-page wich is rather outdated >> (last modification in 2002): >> http://www.macrosystem.de/d/imprint_copyright.html > According to the HTTP headers, that page was last modified on Tuesday > (2009-08-04). Ah, I just looked at the last modified on statement at the bottom of the page. Danny - -- There is infinite time. = http://www.cyberdelia.de You are finite. = eagle at cyberdelia.de Zathras is finite. = This is wrong tool. = \o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkp6mmEACgkQCa/LtJGgW5FdrQCaAx3eKJtuaHsn7ubLeg0duJVc ZAEAn2GcNBJQ0I2rqtC030j2zCc780Jf =/CqZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mathfox at xs4all.nl Thu Aug 6 12:40:28 2009 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:40:28 +0200 Subject: how to comply question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A7AB31C.1070600@xs4all.nl> Hi, Tamas TEVESZ wrote: > there's an open source project, which, as a part of it's build > framework, relies on a couple of gpl tools (coreutils pieces, make, > stuff like that). to make life easier for users, binaries of these > tools for some not-so-fortunate platforms (dos, os/2 and the like -- > you get the idea) are included in the source repository. it turns out > that for some of the stuff, we don't even know or can find a location > for a source package. > > removing these binaries is thought to create a "support nightmare" of > sorts, even with pointers and documentation stating "you need to get > it, do so here and here". including source packages is somewhere in > the source repo is partially possible (as said, for some binaries we > don't know a source), but we still can't be perfectly sure (though a > certain level of confidence is there) whatever sources we include > will match the binaries we include - point is, we aren't really in the > coreutils "business", just including them so our users don't have to > be in the coreutils business either ;) > > what would be the appropriate course of action to take? (I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice. This also is free advice and I limit my liability to what you've paid for this advice.) To summarize in my own words: you want to "clean up your repository and get in full GPL compliance". That means you should have matching sets of source and binary packages for the GPL components you distribute. One option is collecting them on the Internet, but you can also consider creating your own binary packages from a known source package. (Ask some volunteers to step up.) Tell these volunteers that they are allowed to change the code, but must keep a record of their changes. You should then make sure that a source package with all their changes included is made. (Optionally, try to get those patches applied "upstream" with the package maintainers.) Peter. From lennon at orcon.net.nz Tue Aug 11 05:50:05 2009 From: lennon at orcon.net.nz (Craig Whitmore) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:50:05 +1200 Subject: Who has the rights to claim GPL copyright infringement of linux ?? In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80907220411x30386c3p70b316fa6ccd2e79@mail.gmail.com> References: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> <30dfe2a80907220411x30386c3p70b316fa6ccd2e79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1249962605.14731.15.camel@localhost> On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 07:11 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Craig Whitmore wrote: > > A question is who has the rights to claim copyright infrigement of > > someone using a device which uses a bit of hardware which runs the linux > > kernel which doesn't follow the GPL rules? > > As the linux kernel includes input/code from 10000's of people can > > anyone one of them take someone else to court for copyright infrigement > > (as the hardware manufactuer using the linux kernel didn't follow the > > GPL Copyright Licence?) > > IANAL, and it's kind of hazy, however.. Anyone could argue that if > they have 1 line of code running on the box, their being infringed > upon if they are not complying with the GPL. However, the example of > the kernel itself is murky because there's a whole lotta derived work > going on in there. > > This is why the FSF recommends that you grant them the code, so THEY > can do it. > I have checked the code of the version of the linux kernel they are using on the device which uses linux and they don't follow the GPL Licence (no source code or supplied GPL Licence with the box and they are refusing to give the source code for the GPL part of it) This is my code I could find in this kernel which is very identifable. /* reported working by "Craig Whitmore */ /*4*/ { "Quadrant Buster", 3, 3, T, F, T, T, 0x7F, 0x80, { SVHS(1), TUNER(2), 3 }, { 1, 2, 3 } }, I supplied that information for that card to work (and it did work) so I guess I can "sue them" them for using the kernel on their box without following copyright (the GPL kernel) As you said the linux kernel is "copyrighted" by lots of people but the linux kernel comes under the GPL license. Thanks From hub at figuiere.net Tue Aug 11 06:27:29 2009 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:27:29 -0400 Subject: Who has the rights to claim GPL copyright infringement of linux ?? In-Reply-To: <1249962605.14731.15.camel@localhost> References: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> <30dfe2a80907220411x30386c3p70b316fa6ccd2e79@mail.gmail.com> <1249962605.14731.15.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <4A80F331.4090503@figuiere.net> On 08/10/2009 11:50 PM, Craig Whitmore wrote: > This is my code I could find in this kernel which is very identifable. > > /* reported working by "Craig Whitmore */ > /*4*/ { "Quadrant Buster", > 3, 3, T, F, T, T, 0x7F, 0x80, { SVHS(1), TUNER(2), 3 }, { 1, > 2, 3 } }, > > I supplied that information for that card to work (and it did work) so I > guess I can "sue them" them for using the kernel on their box without > following copyright (the GPL kernel) Unfortunately, this ought to be considered as a non copyrightable triviality. IANAL. Hub From lennon at orcon.net.nz Tue Aug 11 06:48:39 2009 From: lennon at orcon.net.nz (Craig Whitmore) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:48:39 +1200 Subject: Who has the rights to claim GPL copyright infringement of linux ?? In-Reply-To: <4A80F331.4090503@figuiere.net> References: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> <30dfe2a80907220411x30386c3p70b316fa6ccd2e79@mail.gmail.com> <1249962605.14731.15.camel@localhost> <4A80F331.4090503@figuiere.net> Message-ID: <1249966119.14731.30.camel@localhost> On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 00:27 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote: > On 08/10/2009 11:50 PM, Craig Whitmore wrote: > > This is my code I could find in this kernel which is very identifable. > > > > /* reported working by "Craig Whitmore */ > > /*4*/ { "Quadrant Buster", > > 3, 3, T, F, T, T, 0x7F, 0x80, { SVHS(1), TUNER(2), 3 }, { 1, > > 2, 3 } }, > > > > I supplied that information for that card to work (and it did work) so I > > guess I can "sue them" them for using the kernel on their box without > > following copyright (the GPL kernel) > > > Unfortunately, this ought to be considered as a non copyrightable > triviality. > Maybe but it was my knowledge on how this card worked which came up the settings for this card which was included in this version of kernel which is licenced under the GPL Kernel. Someone else is using my ideas/knowledge without following the rules of the use of the linux kernel. Thanks From lists at janc.be Tue Aug 11 08:15:51 2009 From: lists at janc.be (Jan Claeys) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:15:51 +0200 Subject: Who has the rights to claim GPL copyright infringement of linux ?? In-Reply-To: <1249966119.14731.30.camel@localhost> References: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> <30dfe2a80907220411x30386c3p70b316fa6ccd2e79@mail.gmail.com> <1249962605.14731.15.camel@localhost> <4A80F331.4090503@figuiere.net> <1249966119.14731.30.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1249971351.18204.13.camel@saeko.local> Op dinsdag 11-08-2009 om 16:48 uur [tijdzone +1200], schreef Craig Whitmore: > Someone else is using my ideas/knowledge without following the rules > of the use of the linux kernel. Ideas & knowledge aren't copyrightable... -- Jan Claeys From lennon at orcon.net.nz Tue Aug 11 09:01:28 2009 From: lennon at orcon.net.nz (Craig Whitmore) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:01:28 +1200 Subject: Who has the rights to claim GPL copyright infringement of linux ?? In-Reply-To: <1249971351.18204.13.camel@saeko.local> References: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> <30dfe2a80907220411x30386c3p70b316fa6ccd2e79@mail.gmail.com> <1249962605.14731.15.camel@localhost> <4A80F331.4090503@figuiere.net> <1249966119.14731.30.camel@localhost> <1249971351.18204.13.camel@saeko.local> Message-ID: <1249974088.20741.1.camel@localhost> On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 08:15 +0200, Jan Claeys wrote: > Op dinsdag 11-08-2009 om 16:48 uur [tijdzone +1200], schreef Craig > Whitmore: > > Someone else is using my ideas/knowledge without following the rules > > of the use of the linux kernel. > > Ideas & knowledge aren't copyrightable... But the results from the ideas and knowledge are... (and the result was the line of code) > > From simon at josefsson.org Tue Aug 11 16:47:25 2009 From: simon at josefsson.org (Simon Josefsson) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:47:25 +0200 Subject: Who has the rights to claim GPL copyright infringement of linux ?? In-Reply-To: <1249974088.20741.1.camel@localhost> (Craig Whitmore's message of "Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:01:28 +1200") References: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> <30dfe2a80907220411x30386c3p70b316fa6ccd2e79@mail.gmail.com> <1249962605.14731.15.camel@localhost> <4A80F331.4090503@figuiere.net> <1249966119.14731.30.camel@localhost> <1249971351.18204.13.camel@saeko.local> <1249974088.20741.1.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <87tz0emmpu.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> Craig Whitmore writes: > On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 08:15 +0200, Jan Claeys wrote: >> Op dinsdag 11-08-2009 om 16:48 uur [tijdzone +1200], schreef Craig >> Whitmore: >> > Someone else is using my ideas/knowledge without following the rules >> > of the use of the linux kernel. >> >> Ideas & knowledge aren't copyrightable... > > But the results from the ideas and knowledge are... (and the result was > the line of code) Did you write that line of code? Anyway, even the FSF uses a limit of around 15 lines of code; quoting the GNU maintainers manual: If a person contributes more than around 15 lines of code and/or text that is legally significant for copyright purposes, we need copyright papers for that contribution, as described above. A change of just a few lines (less than 15 or so) is not legally significant for copyright. A regular series of repeated changes, such as renaming a symbol, is not legally significant even if the symbol has to be renamed in many places. Keep in mind, however, that a series of minor changes by the same person can add up to a significant contribution. What counts is the total contribution of the person; it is irrelevant which parts of it were contributed when. Copyright does not cover ideas. If someone contributes ideas but no text, these ideas may be morally significant as contributions, and worth giving credit for, but they are not significant for copyright purposes. Likewise, bug reports do not count for copyright purposes. /Simon From henrik at henriknordstrom.net Thu Aug 13 04:52:32 2009 From: henrik at henriknordstrom.net (Henrik Nordstrom) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:52:32 +0200 Subject: Who has the rights to claim GPL copyright infringement of linux ?? In-Reply-To: <87tz0emmpu.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> References: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> <30dfe2a80907220411x30386c3p70b316fa6ccd2e79@mail.gmail.com> <1249962605.14731.15.camel@localhost> <4A80F331.4090503@figuiere.net> <1249966119.14731.30.camel@localhost> <1249971351.18204.13.camel@saeko.local> <1249974088.20741.1.camel@localhost> <87tz0emmpu.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> Message-ID: <1250131952.5899.214.camel@henriknordstrom.net> tis 2009-08-11 klockan 16:47 +0200 skrev Simon Josefsson: > Anyway, even the FSF uses a limit of around 15 lines of code; quoting > the GNU maintainers manual: The exact limits on what constitutes a copyrighted work varies between countries. In some the single added line may be sufficient, in some far more than those 15 mentioned is needed.. a copyright lawyer can tell you more what the rules are in your part of the world and what possibilities you may have in suing the company in question. But some general rules which should help: * Much easier to argue if it's a significant piece of code being infringed upon. If your own contribution is small then team up with others to build a stronger argument. If they use the Linux kernel then they probably also use other GPL components than your line and if luck then some of the authors of those compnents (kernel or elsewhere) have experience in enforcing their copyright which also helps. * To be most effective the company should if possible be sued in in an area where the company do a significant portion of it's operation, which means by the rules of that area which may differ from yours. Regards Henrik From eagle at cyberdelia.de Mon Aug 17 08:01:24 2009 From: eagle at cyberdelia.de (Daniel Meyer) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:01:24 +0200 Subject: MacroSystem DVC1000 In-Reply-To: <4A7A9A61.6040108@cyberdelia.de> References: <4A7A7C4E.4020907@cyberdelia.de> <4A7A958E.90006@ladisch.de> <4A7A9A61.6040108@cyberdelia.de> Message-ID: <4A88F234.2060901@cyberdelia.de> Daniel Meyer wrote: > Clemens Ladisch wrote: > >> Daniel Meyer wrote: >>> It's using grub and vmlinuz-2.6.28.5, >> Could you determine the kernel configuration, or which modules are >> shipped? > > There is a config-file which can be found on /dev/sda3 (thats the /boot > partition of the system). I've put it on my webspace: > > http://www.scriptkiddies.de/stuff/config-2.6.28.5 > >>> and there are two ext3 filesystems in the firmware. One of them seems >>> to contain a Debian/Lenny system. >> Please determine which programs/packages are in there. > > Here is the output of "dpkg --get-selections": > > http://www.scriptkiddies.de/stuff/packagelist.txt > > Someone (not me) has published the update/recovery DVD: > http://www.macrosystem-download.eu.tf/ > > One can download it, unpack the partimange-files and mount the partition > to verify my findings. > >> I'd guess the manual is identical to the PDF, which says: >> | GLIBC und andere Zusatzprogramme fallen unter die >> | Lizenzbedingungen der Free Software Foundation. Detailinformationen >> | hierzu finden sich auf der MacroSystem Web-Seite. > >> Well ... nice try. > Especially the term "andere Zusatzprogramme" (for the > non-german-speaking-people: The statement roughly translates to "GLIBC > and other additional programs are subject to license agreements of the > free software foundation. Detailed information can be found on the > MacroSystem website"). > >>> On their website they have a copyright-page wich is rather outdated >>> (last modification in 2002): >>> http://www.macrosystem.de/d/imprint_copyright.html >> According to the HTTP headers, that page was last modified on Tuesday >> (2009-08-04). > Ah, I just looked at the last modified on statement at the bottom of the > page. > > Danny Just FYI: No reply yet from MacroSystem. Looks like they are either very busy or trying to sit it out... Danny -- There is infinite time. = http://www.cyberdelia.de You are finite. = eagle at cyberdelia.de Zathras is finite. = This is wrong tool. = \o/ From pretor_hq at wp.pl Mon Aug 17 14:19:30 2009 From: pretor_hq at wp.pl (pretor_hq at wp.pl) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:19:30 +0200 Subject: using GPL program through different interfaces by another program and that program license issue Message-ID: <4A894AD2.3060401@wp.pl> Dear Sirs If there is GPL Program A with a) command line interface (ie c:\progA.exe someCommand) b) telnet interface (ie c:\progA.exe connectToTelnetInterface and after that I can just do some commands ie #command1 ) and if there is a program B which uses a) interface (invokes the command) then does B had to have GPL license or not? and if there is a program C which uses b) interface (invokes the the command which connects him to telnet interface of A and after that invoking some A telnet commands) then does C had to have GPL license or not? Regards From twaffle at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 15:52:45 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:52:45 -0400 Subject: using GPL program through different interfaces by another program and that program license issue In-Reply-To: <4A894AD2.3060401@wp.pl> References: <4A894AD2.3060401@wp.pl> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80908170652y25a9d34avb2ca69ad26d227a4@mail.gmail.com> 2009/8/17 pretor_hq at wp.pl : > Dear Sirs > > If there is GPL ?Program A with > a) command line interface (ie c:\progA.exe someCommand) > b) telnet interface (ie c:\progA.exe connectToTelnetInterface ?and after > that I can just do some commands ie #command1 ) > > and if there is a program B which uses a) interface (invokes the command) > then does B had to have GPL license or not? > > and if there is a program C which uses b) interface (invokes the the command > which connects him to telnet interface of A and after that invoking some A > telnet commands) then does C had to have GPL license or not? IANAL, but I've always had the opinion that this is the hairy edge. Some people are of the opinion, which I tend NOT to share, that if a programs functionality is dependant on the functionality of another GPLed program, then you're linked. For instance, earlier this year there was a comparison made that if your application is dependant on a MySQL server, then you are linked to their license in your application. However, there is a catch. Most applications which require the functionality of another application will typically need to distribute that application. They are still obviously bound by the GPL when it comes to that 'third party' application which it relies on. Unless, of course, they go SO far as to hosting the application on their servers, and not distributing it at all, in which case, they wouldn't be. -- -- Thomas From allan.hardy at lmco.com Mon Aug 17 19:39:05 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:39:05 -0400 Subject: using GPL program through different interfaces by another program and that program license issue In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80908170652y25a9d34avb2ca69ad26d227a4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A894AD2.3060401@wp.pl> <30dfe2a80908170652y25a9d34avb2ca69ad26d227a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE44700A13991@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> IANAL, - Having sat in briefings and lectures held by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) I know they and the FSF have this thing about functionality - If your Application depends 100% on a GPL Application, it is likely a 'derived work' - is just about a direct quote. They teach that the technical aspects of the integration are only a part of the issue. They also look at the 'semantics' of the integration. I've no idea if they are right. Actually no one does as there is no case law. Who knows if that will ever hold up in court, who knows if such a case will ever get to court to be decided on. Who owns the Program-A and what do they say? There is no 'single' interpretation of GPL terms, it at least vstarts with the copyright holder. IMHO, it is all about risk mitigation isn't it? not so much about black and white. Where instead of asking 'is this legal' I find the questions are more like; how can I lower risks? what are mitigation strategies? etc. Can we lower the 'surface area' of exposed software? Is there a non-GPL equivalent (postgresql as example), Can we be database agnostic (in the mysql example) and let the implementation be a customer decision? (meaning we build, test, market and support more than one DB). What is the copyright holders position? Their prior activities? Can we just deliver as OSS? Just as sample questions and evaluations we do and will continue to do until there is some case law around what the SFLC calls pushing copyright law to unexplored areas. Just a curious question - what other license has a compliancy lab of specially trained software and legal folks to evaluate your products compliancy? Anyway, no advice from me, just opinion -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Charron Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:53 AM To: pretor_hq at wp.pl Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: using GPL program through different interfaces by another program and that program license issue 2009/8/17 pretor_hq at wp.pl : > Dear Sirs > > If there is GPL ?Program A with > a) command line interface (ie c:\progA.exe someCommand) > b) telnet interface (ie c:\progA.exe connectToTelnetInterface ?and after > that I can just do some commands ie #command1 ) > > and if there is a program B which uses a) interface (invokes the command) > then does B had to have GPL license or not? > > and if there is a program C which uses b) interface (invokes the the command > which connects him to telnet interface of A and after that invoking some A > telnet commands) then does C had to have GPL license or not? IANAL, but I've always had the opinion that this is the hairy edge. Some people are of the opinion, which I tend NOT to share, that if a programs functionality is dependant on the functionality of another GPLed program, then you're linked. For instance, earlier this year there was a comparison made that if your application is dependant on a MySQL server, then you are linked to their license in your application. However, there is a catch. Most applications which require the functionality of another application will typically need to distribute that application. They are still obviously bound by the GPL when it comes to that 'third party' application which it relies on. Unless, of course, they go SO far as to hosting the application on their servers, and not distributing it at all, in which case, they wouldn't be. -- -- Thomas From roberto.gordo at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 13:49:21 2009 From: roberto.gordo at gmail.com (Roberto Gordo Saez) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:49:21 +0200 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue Message-ID: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> Hello, I want to upgrade a program from GPLv2 to GPLv3, and I am quite confused because some special conditions attached to the GPL in this particular program. I need your help to understand this. I'm *not* the copyright holder. The program is under GPLv2 "or (at your option) any later version", with an additional restriction: usage for commercial products is not allowed. The GPLv3 has information in section 7 about "further restrictions": If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying. If I have a GPLv3 program with "further restrictions", I can remove them, that is clear. If I have a GPLv2 program that "permits relicensing or conveying under this License", then I can use it under the GPLv3 "provided that the further restriction does not survive". How can I know if the restriction "survives"? And what does it exactly mean to survive? Does it mean that the restriction must be revoked by the copyright holder, or does it mean that the restriction is no longer valid once the code is under GPLv3? From janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si Mon Aug 24 15:18:56 2009 From: janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si (Janez Pers) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:18:56 +0200 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue In-Reply-To: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> References: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> Message-ID: <4A929340.5050707@fe.uni-lj.si> Roberto Gordo Saez wrote: > Hello, I want to upgrade a program from GPLv2 to GPLv3, and I am quite > confused because some special conditions attached to the GPL in this > particular program. I need your help to understand this. > > I'm *not* the copyright holder. The program is under GPLv2 "or (at your > option) any later version", with an additional restriction: usage for > commercial products is not allowed. As far I understand, such license is NOT GPL V2 compliant. I would avoid it. At least, its licensing is conflicting. GPL does not prohibit commercial use, it encourages it, and whoever is the copyright holder he may have some murky intentions with it. I am not a layer and this is only personal opinion, but the license may be interpreted in the way that you choose GPLV3 (author gives you this option), then follow the letter of GPLV3 and strip off the special restrictions. In step three you might get angry email from the copyright holder and a threat with a lawsuit, and then you are on your own :) I would avoid it alltogether. From twaffle at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 16:44:04 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:44:04 -0400 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue In-Reply-To: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> References: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80908240744y11728ad4qa691b977ae0383a7@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote: > If I have a GPLv3 program with "further restrictions", I can remove them, > that is clear. If I have a GPLv2 program that "permits relicensing or > conveying under this License", then I can use it under the GPLv3 > "provided that the further restriction does not survive". In my opinion (IANAL), the combination of terms makes for an invalid license. So even though the GPLv2 or greater is in there currently, the GPL v3 says you CAN'T attach those strings, but they're there already. And they're clearly contradictory. It's like mom saying you can have a cookie, and dad saying if ignore dad. Which one has precedence over the other? A judge can decide which sections are in the intent, but an end user really can't just willy nilly decide that it's not applicable to you. And in a court of law, I'd honestly say, the intent is clear. They DON'T want you to do what you are clearly attempting to. I agree with the idea of respecting the original authors intent. Why in gods name would you want to intentionally piss off someone who basically gave you something for free? Never mind the legality, but if I'D heard a complaint like that about you, I would personally avoid your products and solutions at all cost. -- -- Thomas From roberto.gordo at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 18:50:34 2009 From: roberto.gordo at gmail.com (Roberto Gordo Saez) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:50:34 +0200 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80908240744y11728ad4qa691b977ae0383a7@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> <30dfe2a80908240744y11728ad4qa691b977ae0383a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090824165034.GA4571@thing.nowhere> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:44:04AM -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: > I agree with the idea of respecting the original authors intent. > Why in gods name would you want to intentionally piss off someone who > basically gave you something for free? My web pages are personal and don't have ads, I don't have a "donate" button and I don't want money, I already have all the money that I need. This is a personal project just for fun, so the non-commercial restriction should not be problem for me. Just asking. I want to take some parts of that source code for another program which already contains GPLv3 source, derived from other free software projects. Since I can't downgrade the GPLv3 to v2, the only solution is to upgrade v2 to v3 in order to combine all parts. The program that has the additional restriction is linuxsampler ( http://linuxsampler.org/ ). I already asked to the authors, replied: "no matter if GPL2 or GPL3, the commercial exception still applies to LinuxSampler and derivative works" [...] From janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si Mon Aug 24 19:33:51 2009 From: janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si (Janez Pers) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:33:51 +0200 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue In-Reply-To: <20090824165034.GA4571@thing.nowhere> References: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> <30dfe2a80908240744y11728ad4qa691b977ae0383a7@mail.gmail.com> <20090824165034.GA4571@thing.nowhere> Message-ID: <4A92CEFF.8010704@fe.uni-lj.si> Roberto Gordo Saez wrote: > The program that has the additional restriction is linuxsampler > ( http://linuxsampler.org/ ). I already asked to the authors, replied: I would advise you that you stay away. Given the authors quite definitive interpretation and aggressive stance on free software: http://www.linuxsampler.org/faq.html#commercial_products he will probably go after you if you strip the commercial clause out of his license. Nevertheless, I think that while he is totally right about the software being free software (this is a vague term) he is absolutely wrong to use GPL as the license. In fact, I think that he is even violating the GPL terms by linking his software against GPLed libraries. GPL is "virulent" in the sense that you cannot limit derived work further than original license allows. See here: http://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html From the tone of FAQ it is a bit obvious that people pointed out this to him already, albeit (obviously) unsuccessfully. So, the original suggestion stays: I would not dive into this. If it is for your own use, modify the code as you wish, but any redistribution will probably put you at odds with the author. But obviously (in general) this is thorny issue: people who use GPL, but restrict it in the various ways. His justification to limit commercial use is (in theory) covered by GPL terms themselves (e.g. anyone who would comercially distribute the software would need to do it source code as well, so there is no big commercial advantage if GPL terms are respected). From janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si Mon Aug 24 19:36:29 2009 From: janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si (Janez Pers) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:36:29 +0200 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue In-Reply-To: <20090824165034.GA4571@thing.nowhere> References: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> <30dfe2a80908240744y11728ad4qa691b977ae0383a7@mail.gmail.com> <20090824165034.GA4571@thing.nowhere> Message-ID: <4A92CF9D.3050402@fe.uni-lj.si> Roberto Gordo Saez wrote: > The program that has the additional restriction is linuxsampler > ( http://linuxsampler.org/ ). I already asked to the authors, replied: Please look also here, this is obviously not the first discussion regarding this actual software. http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxsampler-devel at lists.sourceforge.net/msg00364.html From roberto.gordo at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 20:11:47 2009 From: roberto.gordo at gmail.com (Roberto Gordo Saez) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:11:47 +0200 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue In-Reply-To: <4A92CEFF.8010704@fe.uni-lj.si> References: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> <30dfe2a80908240744y11728ad4qa691b977ae0383a7@mail.gmail.com> <20090824165034.GA4571@thing.nowhere> <4A92CEFF.8010704@fe.uni-lj.si> Message-ID: <20090824181147.GA4908@thing.nowhere> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 07:33:51PM +0200, Janez Pers wrote: > So, the original suggestion stays: I would not dive into > this. If it is for your own use, modify the code as you > wish, but any redistribution will probably put you at odds > with the author. Thank you very much, I will follow your suggestion and avoid it. From bkuhn at ebb.org Tue Aug 25 17:40:35 2009 From: bkuhn at ebb.org (Bradley M. Kuhn) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:40:35 -0400 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue In-Reply-To: <4A92CEFF.8010704@fe.uni-lj.si> (Janez Pers's message of "Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:33:51 +0200") References: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> <30dfe2a80908240744y11728ad4qa691b977ae0383a7@mail.gmail.com> <20090824165034.GA4571@thing.nowhere> <4A92CEFF.8010704@fe.uni-lj.si> Message-ID: <87ab1naolo.fsf@ebb.org> While IANAL, I do believe Janez Pers gives very good advice on this thread. As one of GPLv3's drafters, I can tell you that the reason this part of GPLv3 was added: If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. was precisely because many copyright holders over the years (sometimes by accident and sometimes for nefarious purposes) have added GPLv2-contradictory terms outside in a separate, accompanying license notice. (For example, adding things like: "No commercial distribution permitted" right after a GPLv2 notice). These types of contradictory licenses have always been a problem in the Free Software community. With GPLv3, you can just throw them away, but you can't take such liberties under GPLv2. Meanwhile, the GPLv2-or-later interaction here is a complicated question, and before you try to exercise any of your copyright-controlled freedoms with regard to the codebase in question with the dubious extra restriction, you should consult legal counsel. If you can't and/or don't want to talk to a lawyer, then simply pretending the "or-later" isn't there and defaulting to the same conservative stance you would take with GPLv2-only plus such a restriction (i.e., that you have *no idea* what your license is and what you're permitted to do) is probably the best you can do. -- -- bkuhn From allan.hardy at lmco.com Wed Aug 26 23:11:33 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:11:33 -0400 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue In-Reply-To: <87ab1naolo.fsf@ebb.org> References: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> <30dfe2a80908240744y11728ad4qa691b977ae0383a7@mail.gmail.com> <20090824165034.GA4571@thing.nowhere> <4A92CEFF.8010704@fe.uni-lj.si> <87ab1naolo.fsf@ebb.org> Message-ID: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470109C85F@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> Interesting >> These types of contradictory licenses have always been a problem in the Free Software community. Isn't this a violation of the GPL, especially the spirit and intent? 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. Isn't the right approach to call these folks out for a GPL v2 violation? As a second issue, let's say LinuxSampler is just under a nonGPL compatible license, what about the fact that they are building other pure GPL products and forcing them to work with a nonGPL compliant service? For instance JSampler is GPL and is distributed and forced to use a nonGPL compliant service. Isn't there something wrong with distributing GPL products that only work with NonGPL Compatible products? They are also putting anyone that builds and makes available solutions using these products in jeopardy of GPL violations as well. In any case I would not approve the use of these components/products in my company and most assuredly not allow any LinuxSampler based applications to go outside the company. Using GPL v3 For me its pretty straight line - they allow the use of GPL v3, all of the source files I sampled said so. GPL v3 allows me to ignore the extra restriction they put in the README file. So accept the license under v3, leave the restriction in the README but simply ignore it as GPL v3 allows. So these guys might get mad? So? They have violated the GPL v2 itself, they will have a weak position. Your leveraging v3 and it would be interesting if they went to the SFLC/FSF to get support. Or, why not post your intent to use v3 and ignore the commercial caveat on their discussion forum and see what ensues? Allan -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Bradley M. Kuhn Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:41 AM To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue While IANAL, I do believe Janez Pers gives very good advice on this thread. As one of GPLv3's drafters, I can tell you that the reason this part of GPLv3 was added: If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. was precisely because many copyright holders over the years (sometimes by accident and sometimes for nefarious purposes) have added GPLv2-contradictory terms outside in a separate, accompanying license notice. (For example, adding things like: "No commercial distribution permitted" right after a GPLv2 notice). These types of contradictory licenses have always been a problem in the Free Software community. With GPLv3, you can just throw them away, but you can't take such liberties under GPLv2. Meanwhile, the GPLv2-or-later interaction here is a complicated question, and before you try to exercise any of your copyright-controlled freedoms with regard to the codebase in question with the dubious extra restriction, you should consult legal counsel. If you can't and/or don't want to talk to a lawyer, then simply pretending the "or-later" isn't there and defaulting to the same conservative stance you would take with GPLv2-only plus such a restriction (i.e., that you have *no idea* what your license is and what you're permitted to do) is probably the best you can do. -- -- bkuhn From henrik at henriknordstrom.net Thu Aug 27 01:29:49 2009 From: henrik at henriknordstrom.net (Henrik Nordstrom) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:29:49 +0200 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue In-Reply-To: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470109C85F@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> References: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> <30dfe2a80908240744y11728ad4qa691b977ae0383a7@mail.gmail.com> <20090824165034.GA4571@thing.nowhere> <4A92CEFF.8010704@fe.uni-lj.si> <87ab1naolo.fsf@ebb.org> <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470109C85F@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <1251329389.2630.68.camel@henriknordstrom.net> ons 2009-08-26 klockan 17:11 -0400 skrev Hardy, Allan: > So these guys might get mad? So? They have violated the GPL v2 > itself, they will have a weak position. Your leveraging v3 and it > would be interesting if they went to the SFLC/FSF to get support. Authors failing to license their work properly does not automatically give you any rights to their work. Only the opposite. Copyright owners on other works included in the same bundle and required for operation MAY have some standing, but with GPL allowing bundling without "poisoning" other works in the same bundle it's rather weak and does not automatically give any rights to the conflicting work. Probably at best you can force them to cease to publish. Encouraging people to use software works against the intentions of the authors is counter-productive, with a high risk of resulting in hard feelings, split or withdrawn efforts and richer lawyers. It's pretty clear what an author intends when placing a "no commercial use" restriction ontop of GPLv2, even if such restriction technically is incompatible with GPLv2. The actual license given is the lesser of the rights given minus the restrictions, which may end up being no rights at all with just restrictions... Regards Henrik From hendrik at enyo.de Thu Aug 27 09:45:05 2009 From: hendrik at enyo.de (Hendrik Weimer) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:45:05 +0200 Subject: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue In-Reply-To: <4A92CEFF.8010704@fe.uni-lj.si> (Janez Pers's message of "Mon\, 24 Aug 2009 19\:33\:51 +0200") References: <20090824114921.GA4330@thing.nowhere> <30dfe2a80908240744y11728ad4qa691b977ae0383a7@mail.gmail.com> <20090824165034.GA4571@thing.nowhere> <4A92CEFF.8010704@fe.uni-lj.si> Message-ID: <867hwp8zum.fsf@mid.gienah.enyo.de> Janez Pers writes: > Nevertheless, I think that while he is totally right about > the software being free software (this is a vague term) > he is absolutely wrong to use GPL as the license. In fact, > I think that he is even violating the GPL terms by linking > his software against GPLed libraries. GPL is "virulent" > in the sense that you cannot limit derived work further > than original license allows. Probably the best solution is to team up with the copyright holders of the GPLed library (aRts AFAICS) and pressure the LinuxSampler authors into releasing it under GPL proper, remove the offending code, or do not distribute LinuxSampler at all. Hendrik