From ralph at inputplus.co.uk Wed Jul 8 15:55:05 2009 From: ralph at inputplus.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:55:05 +0100 Subject: Questions on GPL application for embedded product In-Reply-To: <20060525193451.GO9787@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> References: <49977F7CEA035C46A2D47108CE0F032F03C72A6F@ANGELIA.aegon.com> <20060525105833.GN9787@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <908666c60605251006y646d26b3l97407f97c669b3@mail.gmail.com> <20060525193451.GO9787@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Message-ID: <20090708135505.CB78F43B3@blake.inputplus.co.uk> Hi, Replying to an oldish email... Harald Welte wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 07:06:55PM +0200, Pierre Michon wrote: > > So this means that companies that builds devices that only accept > > signed binaries violate the GPLv2 ? > > yes, at least as long as there is no possibility for the user to add > his own key and make the product accept binaries signed with his key. In my arguments with Amstrad, who never ended up providing the matching source and later changed their bootloader to only accept signed downloads, I was told Amstrad would be happy to sign a firmware image I built and return it to me so I could then download it to the device. They saw this as meeting the GPLv2 but putting enough of an impediment in the way as to mean no one would bother. :-( Cheers, Ralph. From allan.hardy at lmco.com Wed Jul 8 19:54:15 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:54:15 -0400 Subject: Questions on GPL application for embedded product In-Reply-To: <20090708135505.CB78F43B3@blake.inputplus.co.uk> References: <49977F7CEA035C46A2D47108CE0F032F03C72A6F@ANGELIA.aegon.com> <20060525105833.GN9787@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <908666c60605251006y646d26b3l97407f97c669b3@mail.gmail.com> <20060525193451.GO9787@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20090708135505.CB78F43B3@blake.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE446C053321B@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> Sorta like Redhat Linux and JBoss.com products, you can make copies of GPL/LGPL software, only if you replace the logos/trademarks. A speed bump of an impediment. Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center seem to accept these kinds of speed bumps given thier acceptance of Redhats trademark policy. One difference though is Redhat's approach allows me to do the work, on my schedule, etc. I am empowered to do the work if I so choose. Amstrads policy still leaves them in control, it's not empowering me to do the work, it doesn't give me the freedom of choice, it leaves me dependent on their schedules, desires, willingness, etc. Allan -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Corderoy Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 9:55 AM To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Questions on GPL application for embedded product Hi, Replying to an oldish email... Harald Welte wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 07:06:55PM +0200, Pierre Michon wrote: > > So this means that companies that builds devices that only accept > > signed binaries violate the GPLv2 ? > > yes, at least as long as there is no possibility for the user to add > his own key and make the product accept binaries signed with his key. In my arguments with Amstrad, who never ended up providing the matching source and later changed their bootloader to only accept signed downloads, I was told Amstrad would be happy to sign a firmware image I built and return it to me so I could then download it to the device. They saw this as meeting the GPLv2 but putting enough of an impediment in the way as to mean no one would bother. :-( Cheers, Ralph. From sitaramc at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 01:08:44 2009 From: sitaramc at gmail.com (Sitaram Chamarty) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 04:38:44 +0530 Subject: Questions on GPL application for embedded product In-Reply-To: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE446C053321B@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> References: <49977F7CEA035C46A2D47108CE0F032F03C72A6F@ANGELIA.aegon.com> <20060525105833.GN9787@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <908666c60605251006y646d26b3l97407f97c669b3@mail.gmail.com> <20060525193451.GO9787@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20090708135505.CB78F43B3@blake.inputplus.co.uk> <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE446C053321B@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <2e24e5b90907081608j7f36d8a2g42ca8a98383abb8e@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > Sorta like Redhat Linux and JBoss.com products, you can make copies of > GPL/LGPL software, only if you replace the logos/trademarks. ?A speed bump > of an impediment. ?Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law > Center seem to accept these kinds of speed bumps given thier acceptance of > Redhats trademark policy. I don't think it's the same thing. Red Hat's "restriction" on you is purely by way of trademark law (their logos are trademarked, I believe), nothing to do with the GPL. In fact, it's the binaries you are restricted from, and since GPL only says "source", there is no issue. From allan.hardy at lmco.com Thu Jul 9 14:52:31 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:52:31 -0400 Subject: Questions on GPL application for embedded product In-Reply-To: <2e24e5b90907081608j7f36d8a2g42ca8a98383abb8e@mail.gmail.com> References: <49977F7CEA035C46A2D47108CE0F032F03C72A6F@ANGELIA.aegon.com> <20060525105833.GN9787@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <908666c60605251006y646d26b3l97407f97c669b3@mail.gmail.com> <20060525193451.GO9787@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20090708135505.CB78F43B3@blake.inputplus.co.uk> <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE446C053321B@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> <2e24e5b90907081608j7f36d8a2g42ca8a98383abb8e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE446C63E6F0B@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> Your right it's not the same. It was a loose analogy - the idea of impediments or speed bumps to fulfilling GPL requirements is what I was responding to. -----Original Message----- From: Sitaram Chamarty [mailto:sitaramc at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 7:09 PM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: Ralph Corderoy; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Questions on GPL application for embedded product On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > Sorta like Redhat Linux and JBoss.com products, you can make copies of > GPL/LGPL software, only if you replace the logos/trademarks. ?A speed bump > of an impediment. ?Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law > Center seem to accept these kinds of speed bumps given thier acceptance of > Redhats trademark policy. I don't think it's the same thing. Red Hat's "restriction" on you is purely by way of trademark law (their logos are trademarked, I believe), nothing to do with the GPL. In fact, it's the binaries you are restricted from, and since GPL only says "source", there is no issue. From rck at sonnenkinder.org Tue Jul 14 15:44:49 2009 From: rck at sonnenkinder.org (rck at sonnenkinder.org) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:44:49 +0200 Subject: gpl violation? Message-ID: <20090714134449.GD5773@rck.sh> Hi, I don't know if a company is violating the gpl or not. They use gpl covered code (linux, busybox,...) for their firmware and the have released a tarball for an old version of this firmware. Let' say version 0.1 and a 0.1.tar.gz. Now they have released several version of their firmware as binary-only and as far as I have checked, the only modifications since 0.1 deal with their own proprietary code. So no changes in the gpl-covered stuff. Is this a gpl-violation or not? Are they forced to release the source of the other >0.1 versions? The faq on gpl-violations.org says: "For each and every version of the executable program, you have to release the precisely corresponding version of the complete corresponding source code." I interpret "for each and every version" in that way, that this company has to release additional source code versions. One for each release of their firmware, i.e., if they release binonly-0.2.bin, they have to provide a 0.2.tar.gz. On the other hand I do not fully understand the "corresponding version" part. As the gpl-covered code in the later versions is the same as in version 0.1 (which is published), is it enough if the company only publishes version 0.1 of the code? Is this the "corresponding version"? Regards, rck From clemens at ladisch.de Tue Jul 14 16:21:56 2009 From: clemens at ladisch.de (Clemens Ladisch) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:21:56 +0200 Subject: gpl violation? In-Reply-To: <20090714134449.GD5773@rck.sh> References: <20090714134449.GD5773@rck.sh> Message-ID: <4A5C9484.7070009@ladisch.de> rck at sonnenkinder.org wrote: > They use gpl covered code (linux, busybox,...) for their > firmware and the have released a tarball for an old version of this > firmware. Let' say version 0.1 and a 0.1.tar.gz. > > Now they have released several version of their firmware as > binary-only and as far as I have checked, the only modifications > since 0.1 deal with their own proprietary code. So no changes in the > gpl-covered stuff. > > Is this a gpl-violation or not? Are they forced to release the > source of the other >0.1 versions? > > The faq on gpl-violations.org says: > "For each and every version of the executable program, you have to > release the precisely corresponding version of the complete > corresponding source code." > > I interpret "for each and every version" You omitted the "of the executable program", and "program" in this context means the GLP'd program, not the entire distribution. What they do is perfectly OK. Best regards, Clemens From janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si Tue Jul 14 16:32:20 2009 From: janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si (Janez Pers) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:32:20 +0200 Subject: gpl violation? In-Reply-To: <20090714134449.GD5773@rck.sh> References: <20090714134449.GD5773@rck.sh> Message-ID: <4A5C96F4.60909@fe.uni-lj.si> rck at sonnenkinder.org wrote: > Hi, > > I don't know if a company is violating the gpl or not. > Now they have released several version of their firmware as > binary-only and as far as I have checked, the only modifications > since 0.1 deal with their own proprietary code. So no changes in the > gpl-covered stuff. This is a bit weird wording. How exactly they "used" the GPL code? If they copied source code to their project verbatim, then all of their firmware is bound by GPL license, and subsequent versions are covered by GPL as well. No matter which part of the code they changed in the next version, whole of the code is GPLed now. If they statically linked their code with GPL code, exactly the same applies. If they dynamically linked their code with GPL code, again exactly the same interpretation, unless the code in question is LGPL, not GPL. If, on other hand their firmware contains GPL utilities (e.g. busybox) and their own utilities in the same package, but essentially their code does not use GPLed code, then their code is not bound by GPL and they can do whatever they want (and was their good will to release it in V0.1, or they perhaps misinterpreted GPL license). You need to have in mind the following: GPL protects the user, so that he has access to the newest versions of GPL code. If user can achieve that with their code releases, then they probably did not violate anything. E.g. including busybox in their firmware, along with their proprietary utility AcmeToolExecutable does not prevent you to take the binary AcmeToolExecutable and complement it with the new version of BusyBox - of course, if they did not used any GPL code in their AcmeToolExecutable. standard disclaimer: I am not a layer and this is only an opinion. From hub at figuiere.net Wed Jul 15 08:43:51 2009 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:43:51 -0400 Subject: [legal] Compatibility of GPL with Apache In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5D7AA7.8060204@figuiere.net> On 07/15/2009 02:35 AM, Karthik Venkateswaran wrote: > Please excuse my open ended questions as I am a newbie and am no Legal > expert. You are seeking legal advice, so you should be seeking legal advice from your lawyer. Hub From Karthik.Venkateswaran at lntinfotech.com Wed Jul 15 08:35:44 2009 From: Karthik.Venkateswaran at lntinfotech.com (Karthik Venkateswaran) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:05:44 +0530 Subject: [legal] Compatibility of GPL with Apache Message-ID: Hi all, I have a question with regards to compatibility of Apache license with GPLv2. Just for a background this question is for integrating two packages LUCI (Based on Apache license) and Openwrt (Based on GPLv2). Would like to know the following: 1. LUCI is already ported as a package on Openwrt, will it automatically be part of GPLv2. Considering that the package is built separately independent of Openwrt. 2. Might be wrong to ask this in GPL forum, nevertheless if LUCI (which is under a permissive license) is modified. Then ported on a proprietary framework including an attribution to Apache license. Is this ok? 3. Finally, if I modify the Apache licensed LUCI and port it on GPLv2 framework. Would the proprietary code be entitled under GPLv2? Please excuse my open ended questions as I am a newbie and am no Legal expert. Regards, Karthik Venkateswaran Project Leader Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. Cell: +91 9886676402 E Mail id: karthik.venkateswaran at lntinfotech.com Plot No. 25-31, EPIP Phase II KIADB Indl. Area, Whitefield, Bangalore 560066 T: +91 80 6624 2283 F: +91 80 6624 2424 INDIA +0530 UTC/GMT Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. www.Lntinfotech.com This Document is classified as: L&T Infotech Proprietary L&T Infotech Confidential L&T Infotech Internal Use Only L&T Infotech General Business This Email may contain confidential or privileged information for the intended recipient (s) If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disseminate the information, notify the sender and delete it from your system. ______________________________________________________________________ From mathfox at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 16 12:36:00 2009 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:36:00 +0200 Subject: [legal] Compatibility of GPL with Apache In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A5F0290.1010502@xs4all.nl> Karthik Venkateswaran wrote: > I have a question with regards to compatibility of Apache license > with GPLv2. > > Just for a background this question is for integrating two packages > LUCI (Based on Apache license) and Openwrt (Based on GPLv2). A good starting point would be to look at what the FSF says about license compatibility: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > Would like to know the following: > > 1. LUCI is already ported as a package on Openwrt, will it > automatically be part of GPLv2. Considering that the package is built > separately independent of Openwrt. Nope, I guess LUCI is distributed as "independent work", so it will still be under the Apache license. > 2. Might be wrong to ask this in GPL forum, nevertheless if LUCI > (which is under a permissive license) is modified. Then ported on a > proprietary framework including an attribution to Apache license. Is > this ok? AFAIK you can do that with Apache code. > 3. Finally, if I modify the Apache licensed LUCI and port it on GPLv2 > framework. Would the proprietary code be entitled under GPLv2? The answers depend too much on the details of how the code is actually used in the framework. There are people around that can give you commercial advice (under NDA if you want that). > This Document is classified as: > > L&T Infotech Proprietary L&T Infotech Confidential L&T Infotech > Internal Use Only L&T Infotech General Business > > This Email may contain confidential or privileged information for the > intended recipient (s) If you are not the intended recipient, please > do not use or disseminate the information, notify the sender and > delete it from your system. Please don't send stupid disclaimers to public mailing lists. Peter. From sitaramc at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 14:48:13 2009 From: sitaramc at gmail.com (Sitaram Chamarty) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:18:13 +0530 Subject: LGPL v2 section 6 loophole? Message-ID: <2e24e5b90907160548x3b113d3ejf69b940a89251c15@mail.gmail.com> someone asked me an interesting question. LGPL v2, at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/library.html section 6, says things like this: - "...so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library" - "...include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it" all these are fine, but there seems to be nothing precluding the closed source app from refusing to run with a modified LGPL library! You're only assuring that an executable is produced, not that this executable can be run and will behave substantially the same as the original one (modulo any problems caused by the new library or API changes or whatever). Is this reading correct? I assume it is, because this is essentially Tivo-isation, and we know that was not covered in V2. From janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si Thu Jul 16 16:02:22 2009 From: janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si (Janez Pers) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:02:22 +0200 Subject: LGPL v2 section 6 loophole? In-Reply-To: <2e24e5b90907160548x3b113d3ejf69b940a89251c15@mail.gmail.com> References: <2e24e5b90907160548x3b113d3ejf69b940a89251c15@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5F32EE.4090006@fe.uni-lj.si> Sitaram Chamarty wrote: > - "...so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to > produce a modified executable containing the modified Library" > > - "...include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing > the executable from it" > > all these are fine, but there seems to be nothing precluding the > closed source app from refusing to run with a modified LGPL library! > You're only assuring that an executable is produced, not that this > executable can be run and will behave substantially the same as the > original one You absolutely cannot demand that. New library may make certain interfaces obsolete or change API specs - what you demand is that the author of the closed source app continuously develops and adapts the closed source library, and releases new app whenever a library is modified. This way, LGPL author could cause every user of LGPL code to be in breach of the license whenever he pleases. I suspect (although I don't know) the LGPL wording was weaseled to essentially protect the LGPL code (from unlicensed use) more than protects its users from sticking with obsolete code. (Even though the spirit of GPL is opposite and GPL (not LGPL) provisions are geared primarily towards protecting the users.) In any case, the net effect of LGPL is that (if you obey the license) at least everyone is aware what you used in your code and what flaws it may contain. usual disclaimer: this is solely personal opinion, not advice. From sitaramc at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 03:10:45 2009 From: sitaramc at gmail.com (Sitaram Chamarty) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:40:45 +0530 Subject: LGPL v2 section 6 loophole? In-Reply-To: <4A5F32EE.4090006@fe.uni-lj.si> References: <2e24e5b90907160548x3b113d3ejf69b940a89251c15@mail.gmail.com> <4A5F32EE.4090006@fe.uni-lj.si> Message-ID: <2e24e5b90907161810x46e00e3cv422cdac94b1603ec@mail.gmail.com> OK, I'll rephrase my question: can the closed source app actively include measures to *prevent* something working which would otherwise have worked, and still be compliant with LGPL v2? My reading is yes (this is tivo-isation, except with software instead of hardware), but I thought I'd ask for opinions. Yes, I know we are not lawyers and this forum does not give legal advice -- but I do want your opinions :-) [I should have clarified that I assume the API compatibiity still exists, i.e., I am asking about cases where *technically* it is possible. The operative sentence for that, in the URL discussed, is "It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions."] thanks and best regards sitaram On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Janez Pers wrote: > Sitaram Chamarty wrote: > >> ? - "...so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to >> produce a modified executable containing the modified Library" >> >> ? - "...include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing >> the executable from it" >> >> all these are fine, but there seems to be nothing precluding the >> closed source app from refusing to run with a modified LGPL library! >> You're only assuring that an executable is produced, not that this >> executable can be run and will behave substantially the same as the >> original one > > You absolutely cannot demand that. New library may make certain > interfaces obsolete or change API specs - what you demand is that the > author of the closed source app continuously develops and adapts > the closed source library, and releases new app whenever a library > is modified. This way, LGPL author could cause every user of LGPL > code to be in breach of the license whenever he pleases. > > I suspect (although I don't know) the LGPL wording was weaseled to > essentially protect the LGPL code (from unlicensed use) more than > protects its users from sticking with obsolete code. (Even though the spirit > of GPL is opposite and GPL (not LGPL) provisions are geared primarily > towards protecting the users.) > > In any case, the net effect of LGPL is that (if you obey the > license) at least everyone is aware what you used in your code > and what flaws it may contain. > > usual disclaimer: this is solely personal opinion, not advice. > > From janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si Fri Jul 17 09:47:07 2009 From: janez.pers at fe.uni-lj.si (Janez Pers) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:47:07 +0200 Subject: LGPL v2 section 6 loophole? In-Reply-To: <2e24e5b90907161810x46e00e3cv422cdac94b1603ec@mail.gmail.com> References: <2e24e5b90907160548x3b113d3ejf69b940a89251c15@mail.gmail.com> <4A5F32EE.4090006@fe.uni-lj.si> <2e24e5b90907161810x46e00e3cv422cdac94b1603ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A602C7B.408@fe.uni-lj.si> Sitaram Chamarty wrote: > OK, I'll rephrase my question: can the closed source app actively > include measures to *prevent* something working which would otherwise > have worked, and still be compliant with LGPL v2? > [I should have clarified that I assume the API compatibiity still > exists, i.e., I am asking about cases where *technically* it is > possible. LGPL allows linking with closed-source programs. You cannot know if author of the closed-source app prevented compatibility a) on purpose with evil intentions, b) because he was lazy and used API in a version dependent manner or c) because there was good technical reason to do so. You cannot know if the reason is a, b or c, and since it is a closed source app, you don't have sources and nobody is obliged to release them to you - so in any case, such requirement (that authors don't prevent compatibility on purpose) would be unenforceable. Janez. From twaffle at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 14:19:45 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:19:45 -0400 Subject: LGPL v2 section 6 loophole? In-Reply-To: <2e24e5b90907161810x46e00e3cv422cdac94b1603ec@mail.gmail.com> References: <2e24e5b90907160548x3b113d3ejf69b940a89251c15@mail.gmail.com> <4A5F32EE.4090006@fe.uni-lj.si> <2e24e5b90907161810x46e00e3cv422cdac94b1603ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80907170519p7750e65eg7e866408a52d8763@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Sitaram Chamarty wrote: > OK, I'll rephrase my question: can the closed source app actively > include measures to *prevent* something working which would otherwise > have worked, and still be compliant with LGPL v2? Yes. It's pretty strait forward. There are also situations where an LGPL library may not even *be* physically replacable. (i.e.: Embedded Systems with no real file system) -- -- Thomas From sitaramc at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 17:57:55 2009 From: sitaramc at gmail.com (Sitaram Chamarty) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:27:55 +0530 Subject: LGPL v2 section 6 loophole? In-Reply-To: <4A602C7B.408@fe.uni-lj.si> References: <2e24e5b90907160548x3b113d3ejf69b940a89251c15@mail.gmail.com> <4A5F32EE.4090006@fe.uni-lj.si> <2e24e5b90907161810x46e00e3cv422cdac94b1603ec@mail.gmail.com> <4A602C7B.408@fe.uni-lj.si> Message-ID: <2e24e5b90907170857l7c4f9836nc12980d7515a7e78@mail.gmail.com> Thanks; I had not thought of it this way. Makes sense... regards, sitaram On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Janez Pers wrote: > Sitaram Chamarty wrote: >> >> OK, I'll rephrase my question: can the closed source app actively >> include measures to *prevent* something working which would otherwise >> have worked, and still be compliant with LGPL v2? > >> [I should have clarified that I assume the API compatibiity still >> exists, i.e., I am asking about cases where *technically* it is >> possible. > > LGPL allows linking with closed-source programs. You cannot > know if author of the closed-source app prevented compatibility > a) on purpose with evil intentions, b) because he was lazy and > used API in a version dependent manner or c) because there > was good technical reason to do so. > > You cannot know if the reason is a, b or c, and since it is > a closed source app, you don't have sources and nobody is > obliged to release them to you - so in any case, such requirement > (that authors don't prevent compatibility on purpose) would be > ?unenforceable. > > Janez. > From atwukonn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 22 07:36:23 2009 From: atwukonn at yahoo.com (dave dave) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: gpl violation in rocksndiamonds program Message-ID: <690000.77665.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> hi i think there is a gpl violation in the program rocksndiamonds http://www.artsoft.org/rocksndiamonds/ where the author has incorporated copyright code not compatible with the GPL into his GPL program. the code he has used is in the source archive, where code in the directory game_em/ is not compatible with the GPL. is it a real violation and what can be done if it is? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090721/7233c544/attachment.htm From clemens at ladisch.de Wed Jul 22 08:47:56 2009 From: clemens at ladisch.de (Clemens Ladisch) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:47:56 +0200 Subject: gpl violation in rocksndiamonds program In-Reply-To: <690000.77665.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <690000.77665.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A66B61C.20403@ladisch.de> dave dave wrote: > hi i think there is a gpl violation in the program rocksndiamonds > http://www.artsoft.org/rocksndiamonds/ where the author has > incorporated copyright code not compatible with the GPL into his GPL > program. the code he has used is in the source archive, where code in > the directory game_em/ is not compatible with the GPL. What code, exactly? I downloaded the package, and the source code in that directory looks OK at first glance. > is it a real violation and what can be done if it is? If there actually is some code that was not GPL-licensed by its copyright holder, that person can enforce his rights by using the sanctions and remedies specified in copyright law. Best regards, Clemens From henrik at henriknordstrom.net Wed Jul 22 08:22:10 2009 From: henrik at henriknordstrom.net (Henrik Nordstrom) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:22:10 +0200 Subject: gpl violation in rocksndiamonds program In-Reply-To: <690000.77665.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <690000.77665.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1248243730.28087.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> tis 2009-07-21 klockan 22:36 -0700 skrev dave dave: > hi i think there is a gpl violation in the program rocksndiamonds > http://www.artsoft.org/rocksndiamonds/ where the author has > incorporated copyright code not compatible with the GPL into his GPL > program. the code he has used is in the source archive, where code in > the directory game_em/ is not compatible with the GPL. is it a real > violation and what can be done if it is? Have you contacted the author of rocksndiamonds to discuss the matter? Is the code in game_em/ your code or are you otherwise authorized to represent the author of that code? Regards Henrik From lennon at orcon.net.nz Wed Jul 22 10:12:09 2009 From: lennon at orcon.net.nz (Craig Whitmore) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:12:09 +1200 Subject: Who has the rights to claim GPL copyright infringement of linux ?? Message-ID: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> Hi there.. A post by Henrick he said: "Is the code in game_em/ your code or are you otherwise authorized to represent the author of that code?" 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?) Thanks From mathfox at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 22 13:10:45 2009 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:10:45 +0200 Subject: Who has the rights to claim GPL copyright infringement of linux ?? In-Reply-To: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> References: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <4A66F3B5.7090400@xs4all.nl> Craig Whitmore wrote: > A post by Henrick he said: > > "Is the code in game_em/ your code or are you otherwise authorized to > represent the author of that code?" > > 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?) Any of the Linux copyright holders whose code is used in the product has standing to sue the distributor. Harald Welte sued some companies in Germany as author of some of the Linux (kernel) networking code. (A few projects ask the author to transfer copyrights to the project organisation and in that case it is the project that has to do the suing.) Peter. From twaffle at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 13:11:32 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:11:32 -0400 Subject: Who has the rights to claim GPL copyright infringement of linux ?? In-Reply-To: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> References: <1248250329.6046.25.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80907220411x30386c3p70b316fa6ccd2e79@mail.gmail.com> 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. -- -- Thomas From arnt at c2i.net Wed Jul 22 18:04:55 2009 From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:04:55 +0200 Subject: gpl violation in rocksndiamonds program In-Reply-To: <4A66B61C.20403@ladisch.de> References: <690000.77665.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4A66B61C.20403@ladisch.de> Message-ID: <20090722180455.0c552bc5@a45.fmb.no> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:47:56 +0200, Clemens wrote in message <4A66B61C.20403 at ladisch.de>: > dave dave wrote: > > hi i think there is a gpl violation in the program rocksndiamonds > > http://www.artsoft.org/rocksndiamonds/ where the author has > > incorporated copyright code not compatible with the GPL into his GPL > > program. the code he has used is in the source archive, where code > > in the directory game_em/ is not compatible with the GPL. > > What code, exactly? I downloaded the package, and the source code in > that directory looks OK at first glance. > > > is it a real violation and what can be done if it is? > > If there actually is some code that was not GPL-licensed by its > copyright holder, that person can enforce his rights by using the > sanctions and remedies specified in copyright law. ..that person can also decide to enforce his copyright by granting artsoft.org a license to pass on that license under e.g. "GPLv3-and-later-and-not-GPLv2-or-earlier." ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. From clemens at ladisch.de Fri Jul 24 09:14:37 2009 From: clemens at ladisch.de (Clemens Ladisch) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:14:37 +0200 Subject: gpl violation in rocksndiamonds program In-Reply-To: <775970.70633.qm@web44816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <775970.70633.qm@web44816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A695F5D.3060100@ladisch.de> dave dave wrote: > [...] the code he has used is in the source archive, where code in > the directory game_em/ is not compatible with the GPL. is it a real > violation I was not able to find the code on which that part of rocksndiamonds is based, but the license of the current version of Emeral Mine is: | This program "Emerald Mine for X11" | is copyright ? 2009 David Tritscher. All rights reserved. | | Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without | modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions | are met: | | 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright | notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. | | 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must | not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this | software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product | documentation would be appreciated but is not required. | | 3. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must | not be misrepresented as being the original software. This looks like a BSD-ish license, so there should be no problem incorporating it into a GPL program. But it looks as if condition 1. is violated, assuming that it appeared in the original code. What was the license of your original code? Best regards, Clemens From greg.soper at salesagility.com Thu Jul 30 12:42:47 2009 From: greg.soper at salesagility.com (Greg Soper) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:42:47 +0100 Subject: Is this a breach of Licence Message-ID: <4A717927.40803@salesagility.com> A company we are aware of has rebranded vTiger and passed it off as there own software. vTiger is covered by the SugarCRM Public Licence and by a derivation of the MPL, the vtiger Public License Version 1.0 http://www.vtiger.com/products/crm/vtiger-public-license.html Does this allow me to lift the codebase wholesale, stick my logo on it and pass it off as my own work, or does this clause come into play from the above licence? 3.3. Description of Modifications. You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain a file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered Code and the date of any change. You must include a prominent statement that the Modification is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original Code provided by the Initial Developer and including the name of the Initial Developer in (a) the Source Code, and (b) in any notice in an Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the origin or ownership of the Covered Code. greg -- -- *Greg Soper * Managing Director E-Mail: greg.soper at salesagility.com web: http://www.salesagility.com Tel: 01324 889108 Mobile: 07740 982083 Office Address: Denny Business Centre Carronbank Crescent Denny FK6 6GA Company No.: 299853 Registered in Scotland Registered Office: Denny Business Centre, Carronbank Crescent, Denny FK6 6GA VAT No.: 936 0051 48 This email, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete this email completely from your system, you must not disseminate, copy, distribute or disclose the contents of this email. Emails could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, delayed or contain malicious components. Therefore the sender does not accept any liability or responsibility for any loss or damage incurred whatsoever. Personal opinions and views expressed in this email may not necessarily reflect the official opinions and views of the Company. . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090730/e239f48b/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sugarcrm_experts.PNG Type: image/png Size: 6151 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090730/e239f48b/attachment.png From arnt at c2i.net Thu Jul 30 14:39:38 2009 From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:39:38 +0200 Subject: Is this a breach of Licence In-Reply-To: <4A717927.40803@salesagility.com> References: <4A717927.40803@salesagility.com> Message-ID: <20090730143938.0d303ab8@a45.fmb.no> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:42:47 +0100, Greg wrote in message <4A717927.40803 at salesagility.com>: > A company we are aware of ..name it. > has rebranded vTiger and passed it off as > there own software. ..are you whining on behalf of vtiger.com? You should have used the GPL, which would then have made your question relevant here. > vTiger is covered by the SugarCRM Public Licence and by a derivation > of the MPL, the vtiger Public License Version 1.0 > http://www.vtiger.com/products/crm/vtiger-public-license.html ..this ( http://www.vtiger.com/products/crm/vtiger-public-license.html ) "LICENSE AGREEMENT" contract is relevant to gpl-violations.org how? > Does this allow me to lift the codebase wholesale, stick my logo on > it and pass it off as my own work, or does this clause come into play > from the above licence? > > 3.3. Description of Modifications. > You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain a > file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered Code and > the date of any change. You must include a prominent statement that > the Modification is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original > Code provided by the Initial Developer and including the name of the > Initial Developer in (a) the Source Code, and (b) in any notice in an > Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the > origin or ownership of the Covered Code. > > greg ..ask your contract law litigator. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. From twaffle at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 13:36:57 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:36:57 -0400 Subject: Is this a breach of Licence In-Reply-To: <4A717927.40803@salesagility.com> References: <4A717927.40803@salesagility.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80907300436jfdfef86yd6bd541a7cdc6aa3@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Greg Soper wrote: > A company we are aware of has rebranded vTiger and passed it off as there > own software. > > vTiger is covered by the SugarCRM Public Licence and by a derivation of the > MPL, the vtiger Public License Version 1.0 > http://www.vtiger.com/products/crm/vtiger-public-license.html > > Does this allow me to lift the codebase wholesale, stick my logo on it and > pass it off as my own work, or does this clause come into play from the > above licence? I think this may be the wrong list to ask, as this list is generally GPL specific, however.. IANAL, however. What you quoted isn't a 'way out'. It says if you modify it, you have to describe the changes when you send the source code alongside of the executable. In your case, this is PHP, however, so the sources *are* the executable. Now, if they rip the *license* out of the sources as well, that's a different ball game. -- -- Thomas From arnt at c2i.net Thu Jul 30 19:30:16 2009 From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:30:16 +0200 Subject: Is this a breach of Licence In-Reply-To: <4A719560.8050703@salesagility.com> References: <4A717927.40803@salesagility.com> <20090730143938.0d303ab8@a45.fmb.no> <4A719560.8050703@salesagility.com> Message-ID: <20090730193016.158edd49@a45.fmb.no> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:43:12 +0100, Greg wrote in message <4A719560.8050703 at salesagility.com>: > Do you get paid for being rude and ignorant or does it just come > naturally? ..it comes from over 6 years at http://groklaw.net/ . > I made an honest enquiry ... I have nothing to do with vtiger. I am > competing for a contract with a company that is passing vtiger off as > their own work and I wondered if there was anything I could do about > it. ..I apologise, you came across to me as a Microsoft shill. ..and, unless you are a lawyer, no, I don't see how you can help them, other than help them find a good lawyer, and, take your risks on the contract people, by doing the whistle blowing, some like people with spines, and some do not, so you may Burn for Doing the Right Thing. Good Luck! > Full stop. > > Thank you for your help .... NOT > > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:42:47 +0100, Greg wrote in message > > <4A717927.40803 at salesagility.com>: > > > > > >> A company we are aware of > >> > > > > ..name it. > > > > > >> has rebranded vTiger and passed it off as > >> there own software. > >> > > > > ..are you whining on behalf of vtiger.com? > > You should have used the GPL, which would > > then have made your question relevant here. > > > > > >> vTiger is covered by the SugarCRM Public Licence and by a > >> derivation of the MPL, the vtiger Public License Version 1.0 > >> http://www.vtiger.com/products/crm/vtiger-public-license.html > >> > > > > ..this > > ( http://www.vtiger.com/products/crm/vtiger-public-license.html ) > > "LICENSE AGREEMENT" contract is relevant to gpl-violations.org how? > > > > > >> Does this allow me to lift the codebase wholesale, stick my logo on > >> it and pass it off as my own work, or does this clause come into > >> play from the above licence? > >> > >> 3.3. Description of Modifications. > >> You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain > >> a file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered > >> Code and the date of any change. You must include a prominent > >> statement that the Modification is derived, directly or > >> indirectly, from Original Code provided by the Initial Developer > >> and including the name of the Initial Developer in (a) the Source > >> Code, and (b) in any notice in an Executable version or related > >> documentation in which You describe the origin or ownership of the > >> Covered Code. > >> > >> greg > >> > > > > ..ask your contract law litigator. ;o) > > > > > -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. From twaffle at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 03:15:11 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:15:11 -0400 Subject: Is this a breach of Licence In-Reply-To: <20090730193016.158edd49@a45.fmb.no> References: <4A717927.40803@salesagility.com> <20090730143938.0d303ab8@a45.fmb.no> <4A719560.8050703@salesagility.com> <20090730193016.158edd49@a45.fmb.no> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80907301815g491e376fod17bbb501f96bd89@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:43:12 +0100, Greg wrote in message > <4A719560.8050703 at salesagility.com>: >> Do you get paid for being rude and ignorant or does it just come >> naturally? > ..it comes from over 6 years > at http://groklaw.net/ . Well, you DID come accross as being kinda 'kiss off!'. :-D >> I made an honest enquiry ... I have nothing to do with vtiger. I am >> competing for a contract with a company that is passing vtiger off as >> their own work and I wondered if there was anything I could do about >> it. > ..I apologise, you came across to > me as a Microsoft shill. Perhaps he didn't understand? I'd find that hard to believe from his .sig with SugarCRM all over it tho. > ..and, unless you are a lawyer, no, > I don't see how you can help them, > other than help them find a good lawyer, > and, take your risks on the contract > people, by doing the whistle blowing, > some like people with spines, and > some do not, so you may Burn for > Doing the Right Thing. ?Good Luck! *shrug* He could just send one email to vtiger, the competing company, the client, etc, explaining why they may not be the best choice, and that he believes their using code of questionable legal standing. *shrug* -- -- Thomas From cjwere at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 05:10:19 2009 From: cjwere at gmail.com (Chris Were) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:10:19 +1200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> As its a legal question and a legal forum i'll flesh it out some more: 1) Is it possible/impossible to develop and distribute proprietary software to run on linux? The software in question is to run in user space not kernel. 2) Is it possible to distribute this proprietary software with a customised linux distribution, thus forming an "appliance"? (Documentation as to the GPL OS content and linux distribution contents, source for the GPL portions to be provided to customers, but only binaries for the proprietary part of the Source code) I've been getting a lot of different opinions on this, and it seems a fundamental question: If we develop an application which runs on linux (and must therefore link to some libraries for screen and keyboard, file and network IO), must that application the be GPLv2, and must we distribute source code? Is it at all possible to write a proprietary application to run on linux? I don't know much about linux at a detailed level; I come from a Windows background (which I'd like to leave). I am aware that the libgcc library is licensed with an exception that appears to allow linking of its library with other code to form a unique application which can be distributed under any license, ie can be proprietary. Similarly Java SE seems to have classpath exception resulting in a similar outcome. So does it come down to simply checking whether each library you link to has an exception or not? Or to careful choice of development environment? Or is it fullstop impossible, and am I stuck in Windows trying to earn a livelihood? Thanks, Chris From arnt at c2i.net Fri Jul 31 05:17:34 2009 From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:17:34 +0200 Subject: Is this a breach of Licence In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80907301815g491e376fod17bbb501f96bd89@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A717927.40803@salesagility.com> <20090730143938.0d303ab8@a45.fmb.no> <4A719560.8050703@salesagility.com> <20090730193016.158edd49@a45.fmb.no> <30dfe2a80907301815g491e376fod17bbb501f96bd89@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090731051734.395999ca@a45.fmb.no> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:15:11 -0400, Thomas wrote in message <30dfe2a80907301815g491e376fod17bbb501f96bd89 at mail.gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:43:12 +0100, Greg wrote in message > > <4A719560.8050703 at salesagility.com>: > >> Do you get paid for being rude and ignorant or does it just come > >> naturally? > > ..it comes from over 6 years > > at http://groklaw.net/ . > > Well, you DID come accross as being kinda 'kiss off!'. :-D ..aye, and I apologised, and I _never_ do when I smell a Microsoft shill. ;o) > >> I made an honest enquiry ... I have nothing to do with vtiger. I am > >> competing for a contract with a company that is passing vtiger off > >> as their own work and I wondered if there was anything I could do > >> about it. > > ..I apologise, you came across to > > me as a Microsoft shill. > > Perhaps he didn't understand? I'd find that hard to believe from > his .sig with SugarCRM all over it tho. ..ok, I have wiggle room for another apology. ;o) > > ..and, unless you are a lawyer, no, > > I don't see how you can help them, > > other than help them find a good lawyer, > > and, take your risks on the contract > > people, by doing the whistle blowing, > > some like people with spines, and > > some do not, so you may Burn for > > Doing the Right Thing. ?Good Luck! > > *shrug* He could just send one email to vtiger, the competing > company, the client, etc, explaining why they may not be the best > choice, and that he believes their using code of questionable legal > standing. *shrug* ..well, spine is always a good thing, but in _some_ cases, things goes Bad because you tell the Wrong people and they make you Burn. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. From hub at figuiere.net Fri Jul 31 06:05:17 2009 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:05:17 -0400 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A726D7D.4040903@figuiere.net> On 07/30/2009 11:10 PM, Chris Were wrote: > Is it at all possible to write a proprietary application to run on linux? Not a legal advice, but the following companies seems to have no problem doing so: Real Skype Adobe Novell Nokia Microsoft VMWare Google Oracle Sun Intel IBM / Lotus Nvidia AMD / ATI Xandros and probably a lot more. Hub From twaffle at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 15:04:23 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:04:23 -0400 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80907310604m3ca937e7w40d88511a2119d37@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Chris Were wrote: > As its a legal question and a legal forum i'll flesh it out some more: > 1) Is it possible/impossible to develop and distribute proprietary > software to run on linux? ?The software in question is to run in user > space not kernel. It's not only possibly, but in widespread use. > 2) Is it possible to distribute this proprietary software with a > customised linux distribution, thus forming an "appliance"? > (Documentation as to the GPL OS content and linux distribution > contents, source for the GPL portions to be provided to customers, but > only binaries for the > proprietary part of the Source code) Yes, and in widespread use. > I've been getting a lot of different opinions on this, and it seems a > fundamental question: Whoever you've been getting your opinions from are obviously vry unfamiliar, and haven't really looked at a Linux based system. > If we develop an application which runs on linux (and must therefore > link to some libraries for screen and keyboard, file and network IO), > must that application the be GPLv2, and must we distribute source > code? No, as the C runtime is a LGPL licensed product. As long as nothing you're pulling in is GPL, you're fine. And even though the kernel is GPL, it is the accepted standard for the kernel that anything running under it is not required to conform to it's license, at least from Linus's point of view. > Is it at all possible to write a proprietary application to run on linux? I have no idea where you would get the impression that you couldn't. Can you write one for Windows? > So does it come down to simply checking whether each library you link > to has an exception or not? ?Or to careful choice of development > environment? ?Or is it fullstop impossible, and am I stuck in Windows > trying to earn a livelihood? 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). -- -- Thomas From allan.hardy at lmco.com Fri Jul 31 20:03:01 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:03:01 -0400 Subject: Is this a breach of Licence In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80907300436jfdfef86yd6bd541a7cdc6aa3@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A717927.40803@salesagility.com> <30dfe2a80907300436jfdfef86yd6bd541a7cdc6aa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE446C9E19BE2@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> A bit interesting, academically at least. vTiger describes itself as collective work and contains something like 22 different oss software, many under GPL (so IM not sure its wrong to discuss here) Generically there is nothing wrong with rebranding a GPL work, as long as you maintain all the existing copyright notices. Document and provide source for modifications of course. So if someone took a attribution/copyright notice off a screen, etc then that might be an issue. In general any effort to hide the origination would seem to be an issue, perhaps legally, at least ethically. Of course you can always put an additional trademark restriction around your GPL work, like Redhat does. So changing/removing any logos trademarks would be a violation but not of GPL terms. OSS licenses are inconsistent when it comes to trademark protection. GPL is silent, several just restrict the right to use any trademarks. I believe Apace forces you to maintain any trademarks. You would have to examine all 22 products for not just their licenses but copyright terms, trademark statements, that kind of thing. One slightly interesting thing is vTiger packages and distributes products with incompatible licenses. GPL and Apache for example. What I don't know is if the Apache and GPL products are integrated, which with distribution could be a technical issue though I don't any of the copyright owners is going to support your case. A last quick thing is some of the application that are integrated with the GPL MySQL Database, like SugarLand are not covered under the MySQL FLOSS exception. The packaging and distribution of SugarLand with MySWL makes this a slightly interesting angle, though its a real nit and I doubt any oss copyright owners, like Sun/MySQL are going to support you, an given that SPL is almost MPL which is covered under MySQL FLOSS is a very weak claim and easily fixed. Of course your competitor is not wrapping their offering in yet another license, that would be problematic for them. Or if they are putting proprietary licenses on any special sauce, add-ons, or not offering source - given all the GPL that could be problematic for them as well. In general if they are offering full oss solution, with source code, - they have done a fairly smart and at least generally allowable thing. Have you asked the vTiger community how they feel about people re-badging their work? It seems in general your only competitive strategy would be whatever you would do to compete with vTiger itself, features, support, service, quality. IANAL and this was just thinking out loud. Allan -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Charron Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:37 AM To: greg.soper at salesagility.com Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Is this a breach of Licence On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Greg Soper wrote: > A company we are aware of has rebranded vTiger and passed it off as there > own software. > > vTiger is covered by the SugarCRM Public Licence and by a derivation of the > MPL, the vtiger Public License Version 1.0 > http://www.vtiger.com/products/crm/vtiger-public-license.html > > Does this allow me to lift the codebase wholesale, stick my logo on it and > pass it off as my own work, or does this clause come into play from the > above licence? I think this may be the wrong list to ask, as this list is generally GPL specific, however.. IANAL, however. What you quoted isn't a 'way out'. It says if you modify it, you have to describe the changes when you send the source code alongside of the executable. In your case, this is PHP, however, so the sources *are* the executable. Now, if they rip the *license* out of the sources as well, that's a different ball game. -- -- Thomas From henrik at henriknordstrom.net Fri Jul 31 20:46:24 2009 From: henrik at henriknordstrom.net (Henrik Nordstrom) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:46:24 +0200 Subject: Is it possible/impossible to develop proprietary software to run on linux? In-Reply-To: <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> References: <6c99ee590907301823m84b020ck7bb7a569116360ed@mail.gmail.com> <6c99ee590907302010o5825d33aje8749a00e34d7ce9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1249065984.12234.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> fre 2009-07-31 klockan 15:10 +1200 skrev Chris Were: > If we develop an application which runs on linux (and must therefore > link to some libraries for screen and keyboard, file and network IO), > must that application the be GPLv2, and must we distribute source > code? You need to verify that you comply with the license of each and every component your application depends on and make sure they are compatible with what you are doing. > Is it at all possible to write a proprietary application to run on linux? Yes, if you do your homework in the licensing area. > So does it come down to simply checking whether each library you link > to has an exception or not? See above. Exceptions is part of the license detailing how you may use the works in question. Regards Henrik