From kiange at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 01:51:44 2009
From: kiange at gmail.com (Finjon Kiang)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:51:44 +0800
Subject: About changing the license from GPLv3 to AGPLv3
Message-ID: <c4373eda0902041651i56be663dv4ddff82910ca26d@mail.gmail.com>

Recently, an accounting software, FrontAccounting(
http://frontaccounting.net/ ), decided to change their license from
GPLv2 to AGPLv3.

http://frontaccounting.net/wb3/pages/posts/new-license-type-gnu-agpl-from-release-2.166.php

In the forum, they said they said(
http://frontaccounting.net/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=398 ):

"We have got a permission from the author of OpenAccounting to
increase the license to GPL v.3. OA was discontinued back in 2005. And
the GPL v3 and AGPL v.3 are compatible, so there should be no problems
by using the license GNU AGPL v.3 (or later) for FA."

FrontAccounting was extended by OpenAccounting, and OpenAccounting was
extended by WebERP. Both WebERP and OpenAccounting were released under
GPLv2.

According to the FAQ in gnu.org:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible

In my understanding, the word 'compatible' means the programs which
released under either GPLv3 or AGPLv3 could put together. It doesn't
mean anyone could change the licenses of either program between GPLv3
and AGPLv3.

-- 
Finjon Kiang



From twaffle at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 15:59:50 2009
From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:59:50 -0500
Subject: About changing the license from GPLv3 to AGPLv3
In-Reply-To: <c4373eda0902041651i56be663dv4ddff82910ca26d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c4373eda0902041651i56be663dv4ddff82910ca26d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <30dfe2a80902050659u23a178e6xd7faae89e1c4f429@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Finjon Kiang <kiange at gmail.com> wrote:
> Recently, an accounting software, FrontAccounting(
> http://frontaccounting.net/ ), decided to change their license from
> GPLv2 to AGPLv3.

http://frontaccounting.net/wb3/pages/posts/release-2.1.0-beta-temporarily-stopped.76.php

-- 
-- Thomas



From matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu  Fri Feb  6 02:08:47 2009
From: matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu (Matthew Flaschen)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:08:47 -0500
Subject: About changing the license from GPLv3 to AGPLv3
In-Reply-To: <c4373eda0902041651i56be663dv4ddff82910ca26d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c4373eda0902041651i56be663dv4ddff82910ca26d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <498B8D9F.6090404@gatech.edu>

Finjon Kiang wrote:
> "We have got a permission from the author of OpenAccounting to
> increase the license to GPL v.3. OA was discontinued back in 2005. And
> the GPL v3 and AGPL v.3 are compatible, so there should be no problems
> by using the license GNU AGPL v.3 (or later) for FA."
> 
> FrontAccounting was extended by OpenAccounting, and OpenAccounting was
> extended by WebERP. Both WebERP and OpenAccounting were released under
> GPLv2.
> 
> According to the FAQ in gnu.org:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
> 
> In my understanding, the word 'compatible' means the programs which
> released under either GPLv3 or AGPLv3 could put together. It doesn't
> mean anyone could change the licenses of either program between GPLv3
> and AGPLv3.

As always, it's a bit complicated.  GPLv3 says, "Notwithstanding any
other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine
any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero
General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the
resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the
part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU
Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction
through a network will apply to the combination as such."

So they can create a AGPLv3 module and link to the GPLv3 code.  When the
combination is distributed, AGPLv3 requirements apply.  However, the
GPLv3 code (and any modifications clearly within that module) can still
be used alone without AGPLv3 requirements.

It's not allowed to simply apply AGPLv3 requirements to GPLv3-only code.

Matt Flaschen



From laurent at vromman.org  Mon Feb 16 11:06:30 2009
From: laurent at vromman.org (laurent at vromman.org)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:06:30 +0100
Subject: Requesting informations about possible gpl violation
Message-ID: <fr8zesbkgy6otvpt17UYAxe124vaj_firegpg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I have just subscribed to this mailing list to ask a question about a software I have downloaded yesterday.

I won't name it for the moment, I first want to understand if there really is a GPL violation or not.

The version 1 of this software was GPLV2. But in the heads of the source files, there are copyrights, which are, if I understand things well, completely unlegal and useless, since GPLV2 is supposed to be copylefted.

Example of source file :

...
* LICENSE: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
* as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
* of the License, or any later version.
....

* @copyright  2003-2005 XXXXXXXX <XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>
...
__source_here__

That was the first problem.

Now, there is a new version of this software (version 2), which is not GPL anymore. This is a "semi-opensource"-homemade-licence as they call it which doesn't seem to be GPL compliant at all. The same developpers have done both versions (but since GPL is copylefted, I don't think that changes anything).

They have rewrited some parts of the source code, of course, but there still are lots of remaining code from the first version. The new version is definitively a derivative work from the version 1, and some files (previously marked as GPL) remain almost unmodified between both versions (except for the license part, which does not seem legal to me).

Is this a GPL violation, like it seems to be from my point of view, or not ?

Don't hesitate to ask for more details if necessary to answer my request. The only thing I won't reveal, for the moment at least, is the name of the project and authors.

Regards,

PS : sorry if you receive this mail twice, I forgot to validate my subscription before sending the first mail.
-- 
Laurent Vromman

Key ID : B57DA503
Fingerprint : 2214 8446 F5A7 F310 EB67  25F2 A683 42D3 B57D A503
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090216/0d9b83ff/attachment.pgp 

From laurent at vromman.org  Mon Feb 16 10:44:41 2009
From: laurent at vromman.org (laurent at vromman.org)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:44:41 +0100
Subject: Requesting informations about possible gpl violation
Message-ID: <fr8ymqia89hei0wy8fUYAxe124vaj_firegpg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I have just subscribed to this mailing list to ask a question about a software I have downloaded yesterday.

I won't name it for the moment, I first want to understand if there really is a GPL violation or not.

The version 1 of this software was GPLV2. But in the heads of the source files, there are copyrights, which are, if I understand things well, completely unlegal and useless, since GPLV2 is supposed to be copylefted.

Example of source file :

...
 * LICENSE: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
 * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
 * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
 * of the License, or any later version.
....

 * @copyright  2003-2005 XXXXXXXX <XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>
...
__source_here__

That was the first problem.

Now, there is a new version of this software (version 2), which is not GPL anymore. This is a "semi-opensource"-homemade-licence as they call it which doesn't seem to be GPL compliant at all. The same developpers have done both versions (but since GPL is copylefted, I don't think that changes anything).

They have rewrited some parts of the source code, of course, but there still are lots of remaining code from the first version. The new version is definitively a derivative work from the version 1, and some files (previously marked as GPL) remain almost unmodified between both versions (except for the license part, which does not seem legal to me).

Is this a GPL violation, like it seems to be from my point of view, or not ?

Don't hesitate to ask for more details if necessary to answer my request. The only thing I won't reveal, for the moment at least, is the name of the project and authors.

Regards,
-- 
Laurent Vromman

Key ID : B57DA503
Fingerprint : 2214 8446 F5A7 F310 EB67  25F2 A683 42D3 B57D A503

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090216/3bab162e/attachment.pgp 

From laurent at vromman.org  Mon Feb 16 11:49:36 2009
From: laurent at vromman.org (Laurent)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:49:36 +0100
Subject: Requesting informations about possible gpl violation
In-Reply-To: <49994406.5060804@heenan.me.uk>
References: <fr8zesbkgy6otvpt17UYAxe124vaj_firegpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<49994406.5060804@heenan.me.uk>
Message-ID: <30c2088f0902160249vb110642xa6fe7502d18f413b@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for your answer.

What I don't understand is how someone can own the copyright of a
copylefted license software.

Laurent

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Joseph Heenan <joseph at heenan.me.uk> wrote:
> laurent at vromman.org wrote:
>>
>> Now, there is a new version of this software (version 2), which is not GPL
>> anymore. This is a "semi-opensource"-homemade-licence as they call it which
>> doesn't seem to be GPL compliant at all. The same developpers have done both
>> versions (but since GPL is copylefted, I don't think that changes anything).
>
> If the original developers own the copyright for all the code (or have the
> permission of the copyright owners) they are free to re-license it however
> they like.
>
> The previous versions will continue to be distributable under the existing
> license; in similar situations in the past open source projects have forked
> off using the last publicly available GPL version.
>
> Joseph
>



-- 
Laurent Vromman

Key ID : B57DA503
Fingerprint : 2214 8446 F5A7 F310 EB67  25F2 A683 42D3 B57D A503



From armijn at uulug.nl  Mon Feb 16 11:59:35 2009
From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:59:35 +0100
Subject: Requesting informations about possible gpl violation
In-Reply-To: <30c2088f0902160249vb110642xa6fe7502d18f413b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fr8zesbkgy6otvpt17UYAxe124vaj_firegpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<49994406.5060804@heenan.me.uk>
	<30c2088f0902160249vb110642xa6fe7502d18f413b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1234781975.3109.11.camel@cletus.local>

On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 11:49 +0100, Laurent wrote:
> 
> What I don't understand is how someone can own the copyright of a
> copylefted license software.

Copyleft uses copyright to guarantee certain freedoms. Copyright and
copyleft are not opposites at all.

You might want to start with reading the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

This is not legal advice.

armijn

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group
-------------------------------------------------------------------------




From joseph at heenan.me.uk  Mon Feb 16 11:46:30 2009
From: joseph at heenan.me.uk (Joseph Heenan)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:46:30 +0000
Subject: Requesting informations about possible gpl violation
In-Reply-To: <fr8zesbkgy6otvpt17UYAxe124vaj_firegpg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fr8zesbkgy6otvpt17UYAxe124vaj_firegpg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49994406.5060804@heenan.me.uk>

laurent at vromman.org wrote:
> Now, there is a new version of this software (version 2), which is not 
> GPL anymore. This is a "semi-opensource"-homemade-licence as they call 
> it which doesn't seem to be GPL compliant at all. The same developpers 
> have done both versions (but since GPL is copylefted, I don't think that 
> changes anything).

If the original developers own the copyright for all the code (or have 
the permission of the copyright owners) they are free to re-license it 
however they like.

The previous versions will continue to be distributable under the 
existing license; in similar situations in the past open source projects 
have forked off using the last publicly available GPL version.

Joseph



From jfwfreo at tpgi.com.au  Tue Feb 17 12:51:04 2009
From: jfwfreo at tpgi.com.au (Jonathan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:51:04 +0900
Subject: GPL violation: Motorola MOTODEV Studio for Linux
Message-ID: <499AA4A8.4060504@tpgi.com.au>

The preview release of MOTODEV Studio for Linux available from here:
http://developer.motorola.com/docstools/motodevstudio/linux/
contains GPL code (including gcc, binutils, glibc, cygwin and others) in 
both the "MOTOMAGX SDK" and the shipped VMWARE virtual machine (which 
contains an x86 build of linux and the MOTOMAGX software stack and is used 
for testing the apps you build with the SDK)

I am aware of various ongoing work to get the GPL source code to motorola 
phones (i.e. Z6w, a1600 and others that moto released that they havent 
published source code for) but this is for the linux SDK (which seems like 
now it will never go anywhere with Android being the focus)

Can someone follow up on this and tell me what is happening with regards to 
getting motorola to release the source code for this (and getting motorola 
to be better at complying with the GPL in the general case)



From ninuxpdb at gmail.com  Thu Feb 26 13:35:48 2009
From: ninuxpdb at gmail.com (paolo del bene)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:35:48 +0100
Subject: Google Alert - linux
In-Reply-To: <0016e644df4ce90ad80463cc364f@google.com>
References: <0016e644df4ce90ad80463cc364f@google.com>
Message-ID: <7dc12d290902260435w4fa9a65ew41102a997820a339@mail.gmail.com>

2009/2/26, Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply at google.com>:
> === Google Blogs Alert for: linux ===
>
> Microsoft files patent lawsuit against TomTom over Linux-based GPS ...
> By Nilay Patel
> Microsoft has long maintained that Linux infringes at least 235 of its
> patents, and it looks like it's reaching deep into the bin for some extra
> ammo in a new case filed against TomTom over nav systems -- of the eight
> alleged patent ...
> <http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/microsoft-files-patent-lawsuit-against-tomtom-over-linux-based-g/>
> Engadget
> <http://www.engadget.com/>
>
> Microsoft Sues Linux For Patent Infringement
> By Eric Krangel
> After years of claiming Linux infringes on its patents, Microsoft sues a
> GPS company for using the Linux kernel and refusing to pay licensing fees.
> Expect fireworks.
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-files-suit-linux-violates-our-patents-2009-2>
> The Business Insider
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/>
>
> SheevaPlug, tiny linux server - Hack a Day
> By Caleb Kraft
> It comes with versions of linux, ported for its ARM processor. At $50, this
> cool system could be finding itself in a lot of homes. You can get more
> information from the manufacturer. What uses can you think of for it? ...
> <http://hackaday.com/2009/02/25/sheevaplug-tiny-linux-server/>
> Hack a Day
> <http://hackaday.com/>
>
> Microsoft sues TomTom over Linux and other patent claims ...
> Microsoft filed suit against TomTom today, alleging that the in-car
> navigation company's devices violate eight of its patents -- including
> three that relate to TomTom's implementation of the Linux kernel. ...
> <http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Microsoft_sues_TomTom_over_patents_in_case_with_Linux_subplot_40305732.html>
> TechFlash - Todd Bishop's Microsoft Blog
> <http://www.techflash.com/microsoft>
>
> Installing Linux GUI's on Google Android phones - Download Squad
> By Brad Linder
> Ghostwalker at Android Fanatic has posted instructions for loading IceWM,
> LXDE, or other Linux desktop environments on Google Android. This requires
> installing a Debian Shell and a series of other utilities including an X
> server. ...
> <http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/02/25/installing-linux-guis-on-google-android-phones/>
> Download Squad
> <http://www.downloadsquad.com/>
>
> How To Reset the Root Password in Linux
> By jack
> I administer a LOT of Linux systems. Most of those systems information are
> in a file I keep that tells me what their passwords are. I normally either
> do not.
> <http://www.ghacks.net/2009/02/25/how-to-reset-the-root-password-in-linux/>
> gHacks technology news
> <http://www.ghacks.net/>
>
> Carmack: Quake Live on Mac, Linux 'high on my priority list' - Joystiq
> By Christopher Grant
> Don't worry Mac and Linux gamers: Though the public beta of Quake Live that
> opened its doors yesterday only supports Windows, id Software's John
> Carmack tells Joystiq that "it's pretty high on my priority list to have
> the Mac and Linux ...
> <http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/25/carmack-quake-live-on-mac-linux-high-on-my-priority-list/>
> Joystiq
> <http://www.joystiq.com/>
>
> This once a day Google Alert is brought to you by Google...
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Remove this Google Alert:
> http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?s=EAAAAB5fRQP_Eqhe4ts5LrdBSI0&hl=en&gl=us
>
> Create another Google Alert:
> http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=us
>
> Sign in to manage your alerts:
> http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en&gl=us
>



From ole at tange.dk  Sat Feb 28 05:47:58 2009
From: ole at tange.dk (Ole Tange)
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:47:58 +0100
Subject: Templates for letters to vendors
Message-ID: <ce534faa0902272047ycd37d3es68625cb74c69edb@mail.gmail.com>

I have a feeling we could get more volunteers to act if we gave them
tools to do so.

One thing that could help is templates for letters. I see at least 2 types:

* For a vendor that you have bought a device from (e.g. a wireless access point)

* For a vendor that puts a binary on their webpage (e.g. firmware)

I believe we can use some of
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-cisco-complaint

Here are my draft for hardware. Please help improving it.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df65rjng_124czmbptgp&invite=g2tnvfw


/Ole



From gplvio at mauve.plus.com  Sat Feb 28 20:32:12 2009
From: gplvio at mauve.plus.com (Ian Stirling)
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:32:12 +0000
Subject: Templates for letters to vendors
In-Reply-To: <ce534faa0902272047ycd37d3es68625cb74c69edb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ce534faa0902272047ycd37d3es68625cb74c69edb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49A9913C.2000303@mauve.plus.com>

Ole Tange wrote:
> I have a feeling we could get more volunteers to act if we gave them
> tools to do so.
> 
> One thing that could help is templates for letters. I see at least 2 types:
> <snip>

> Here are my draft for hardware. Please help improving it.
> 
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df65rjng_124czmbptgp&invite=g2tnvfw

Neglecting reading the docs :)

A customised version of the letters, referring to the law in the country 
in question may be an idea.



From bogus@does.not.exist.com  Sat Feb 28 06:14:13 2009
From: bogus@does.not.exist.com ()
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:14:13 -0000
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1239136334.21616.legal@lists.gpl-violations.org>

by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering
equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place
satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though
third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the
object code. "

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

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