From Peter at Kleissner.at  Fri Jan  1 13:15:07 2010
From: Peter at Kleissner.at (Peter Kleissner)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:15:07 +0100
Subject: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and ReactOS)
Message-ID: <001d01ca8adc$0f05d880$2d118980$@at>

Wonderful good day,

Ikarus Security Software (www.ikarus.at) is using open source in their
anti-virus scanning engine, without publishing the modified source. I
already informed the developers of bochs, WINE and ReactOS about the
violation.

Can you give me some tips what to do next? There is a trial Ikarus against
me on January 25 2010, because they accuse me of selling their source.

When I came to Ikarus, there was already the simulator, part of the scanning
engine, that simulates viruses until they are unpacked. My work at Ikarus
was to improve that simulator, making it faster and better. I am now aware
that the existing simulator was based on bochs, and 80% of the code there is
now stolen open source.

Can someone ask Ikarus for the modified source code? If, then please put me
in CC, then I can also show the court that they do not publish their
modified open source upon request (if they don't give you the source).

Any tips etc. would be helpful.

Kind regards,

Peter Kleissner



From nobodyO at web.de  Fri Jan  1 16:41:03 2010
From: nobodyO at web.de (nobodyO at web.de)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:41:03 +0100
Subject: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Re:_Ikarus_Security_Software_violating_LGPL_(Bochs,
	_WI?= =?iso-8859-15?Q?NE_and_ReactOS)?=
Message-ID: <1002195294@web.de>

Hi,

i used several friends and relatives, with a different last name in other cities:
I wrote different letters, with different fonts etc. and they sent them
with their signature from their city, for different date stamps.
For a receipt and a faster reply fax is an alternative.

Best regards,

Rolf

> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: "Peter Kleissner" <Peter at Kleissner.at>
> Gesendet: 01.01.10 13:45:58
> An: <legal at lists.gpl-violations.org>
> CC: christianembacher at gmx.at
> Betreff: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and ReactOS)


> Wonderful good day,
> 
> Ikarus Security Software (www.ikarus.at) is using open source in their
> anti-virus scanning engine, without publishing the modified source. I
> already informed the developers of bochs, WINE and ReactOS about the
> violation.
> 
> Can you give me some tips what to do next? There is a trial Ikarus against
> me on January 25 2010, because they accuse me of selling their source.
> 
> When I came to Ikarus, there was already the simulator, part of the scanning
> engine, that simulates viruses until they are unpacked. My work at Ikarus
> was to improve that simulator, making it faster and better. I am now aware
> that the existing simulator was based on bochs, and 80% of the code there is
> now stolen open source.
> 
> Can someone ask Ikarus for the modified source code? If, then please put me
> in CC, then I can also show the court that they do not publish their
> modified open source upon request (if they don't give you the source).
> 
> Any tips etc. would be helpful.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Peter Kleissner
> 
> 
> 




From neil at neilzone.co.uk  Fri Jan  1 18:30:34 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:30:34 +0000
Subject: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and ReactOS)
In-Reply-To: <001d01ca8adc$0f05d880$2d118980$@at>
References: <001d01ca8adc$0f05d880$2d118980$@at>
Message-ID: <4B3E313A.8000607@neilzone.co.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter

**This is not legal advice**

This looks to be an even more complex situation than usual, to my mind-

a.) You appear to have had a past (employment/contracting) relationship
with Ikarus;
b.) You are engaged in litigation with Ikarus; and
c.) There is an alleged infringement of open source licences.

However, each of these could impact the situation differently, and, for
this reason, I would strongly advise that you seek independent legal
advice in advance of your court appearance.

It is rather unclear to me quite what you are looking to achieve here,
too - are you looking to report, and have rectified, a GPL violation, or
are you looking for support in defence of Ikarus' claim against you, and
looking to use evidence of a GPL violation as part of your defence?

Some further thoughts inline below.

- ----

Peter Kleissner wrote:


>  There is a trial Ikarus against
> me on January 25 2010, because they accuse me of selling their source.

Have you sought legal advice from a lawyer qualified in your
jurisdiction in respect of this? If not, I would suggest that you do so.

There is no claim of "selling their source" as such - is the claim one
of copyright infringement? Or is it some form of contractual dispute? To
be able to formulate a defence, one would need to understand the nature
of the claim against you.

> When I came to Ikarus, there was already the simulator, part of the scanning
> engine, that simulates viruses until they are unpacked. My work at Ikarus
> was to improve that simulator, making it faster and better. 

Was there a contract between yourself and Ikarus for the work which you
did, which could be relevant here?


> Can someone ask Ikarus for the modified source code? If, then please put me
> in CC, then I can also show the court that they do not publish their
> modified open source upon request (if they don't give you the source).

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to prove with this,
unfortunately - demonstrating that Ikarus is infringing copyright, if
indeed it is, is unlikely to be a defence to a claim of copyright
infringement against you.

However, if you were looking to demonstrate that, under the terms of the
licences which cover the code comprising your distribution, you have the
right to make the distribution, then, if it is indeed a claim of
copyright infringement, you might have some success - but, in
litigation, nothing is guaranteed.

Because of the lack of detail in your email as to exactly what the
situation is (an observation, rather than a criticism), I've made a
number of assumptions in my thoughts below - and, as is oft-stated,
assumptions can make ass of you and me, so my thoughts may be entirely
off-base and irrelevant.


Some of my assumptions:

a.) In the code which you are distributing, there is nothing which is
the property of Ikarus, and which falls outside the scope of any open
source licensing obligations - in other words, any Ikarus proprietary code.

b.) There is no contract term in force between Ikarus and yourself which
would be relevant here.

c.) You have received the code which you are distributing in a manner
which would oblige Ikarus to grant you the right to re-distribute it.

d.) You are compliant with any upstream licensing terms in your
distribution - i.e. Ikarus is not claiming that it has granted you a
licence as required by the open source licensing terms affecting Ikarus'
modified code, but that you are failing to comply with the licensing
terms yourself.


Taking the above assumptions into account, is your argument that:

a.) Ikarus is claiming that, in distributing whatever code it is that
you are distributing, you are infringing Ikarus' copyright in respect of
that code;

b.) The code is made up of a number of modules of open source code, some
of which Ikarus has modified;

c.) The licensing of the open source modules requires that, in respect
of the modifications made by Ikarus, Ikarus grants you certain rights;

d.) The rights which Ikarus is obliged to grant to you permit you to do
what you are/were doing;

e.) Ikarus has failed to grant you those rights;

f.) Ikarus' claim is that you do not have the rights to distribute
Ikarus' modifications, but that Ikarus is obliged to grant you those rights;

- --and here it gets more complicated--

that either

g#1.) Because your infringement only arises because Ikarus has failed to
grant you a licence which Ikarus is required to grant to you, Ikarus'
claim against you should be estopped; and/or

g#2.) Because Ikarus is required to grant you a licence, even though it
has failed to do so, you should be treated as having a valid licence -
and, since you have a licence, you are not infringing copyright.

?

These are subtly different- whether Ikarus' alleged failure means that
you have a licence, or that you have no valid licence, but that Ikarus
should be prevented, in equity, from bringing a claim of copyright
against you. (Not all legal systems have a concept of estoppel / laws of
equity.)

The distinction here is between a licence term which says "You
license..." and "You must license..." - clause 2, LGPL 2.1, for example,
requires that a distributor of a modified work "must cause ... the
work... to be licensed" - it's not clear to me that there is an inherent
licence grant if the distributor decides to breach the licence terms.

This really is something which you should discuss, in respect of your
particular situation, with a lawyer qualified in your jurisdiction, to
find out if your defence, if my (many) assumptions above are correct, is
one based on you having a valid licence, or else )


Or am I off-base completely?




- --




Neil


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAks+MToACgkQr70Z7teoI3sfpwCfSGjPACSLdsMjoZQAxHk+2Vsf
Oa0Amwd8w/m03dq87hy8KhbxhJuR7XVr
=Z5pp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From Peter at Kleissner.at  Fri Jan  1 19:42:04 2010
From: Peter at Kleissner.at (Peter Kleissner)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 19:42:04 +0100
Subject: AW: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and ReactOS)
In-Reply-To: <4B3E313A.8000607@neilzone.co.uk>
References: <001d01ca8adc$0f05d880$2d118980$@at>
	<4B3E313A.8000607@neilzone.co.uk>
Message-ID: <003701ca8b12$1d9051b0$58b0f510$@at>

Hi,

To explain the story: No I have not sold any line of their code, they just accuse me because of a joke (an easter egg) I've made. I want report here the LGPL violation, and look for support. The fact that the Ikarus scanner is mostly open source will be part of my defense (why would I sell open source), but at the same time I want to force Ikarus to publish their modified stolen open source, committing back the changes and fixes to Bochs x86 PC emulator etc.
	
Ikarus steals open source (bochs), makes money out of the work of others and licensing their engine to other companies, thus taking advantage of open source software developers. My own software is published under the EUPL, I think that "Human knowledge belongs to the world".

> There is no claim of "selling their source" as such - is the claim one
> of copyright infringement? Or is it some form of contractual dispute? To

They say "giving further business secrets to the advantage of foreign countries", and say because of a program I have published (also as open source) they had to develop a new anti-virus scanner version (they are loco) and want "at least" (their words) 23.000 ? - and that is going to be discussed on January 25 in front of court.

> unfortunately - demonstrating that Ikarus is infringing copyright, if
> indeed it is, is unlikely to be a defence to a claim of copyright
> infringement against you.

Depends. If you steal open source and accuse then an ex-employee to sell the source then you should be aware that those claims do not fall back on you. I will surely not go to jail because someone accuses me of selling open source.

I think you guys here have a good experience in gpl violations, this is why I turned here. Looking at other GPL violations (especially ones in Germany) helps, but I agree that I need a lawyer (for my court trial I'll get a court-appointed lawyer).

Regards,

Peter

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] Im Auftrag von Neil Brown
Gesendet: Freitag, 01. J?nner 2010 18:31
An: Peter Kleissner
Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org; christianembacher at gmx.at
Betreff: Re: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and ReactOS)

Peter

**This is not legal advice**

This looks to be an even more complex situation than usual, to my mind-

a.) You appear to have had a past (employment/contracting) relationship
with Ikarus;
b.) You are engaged in litigation with Ikarus; and
c.) There is an alleged infringement of open source licences.

However, each of these could impact the situation differently, and, for
this reason, I would strongly advise that you seek independent legal
advice in advance of your court appearance.

It is rather unclear to me quite what you are looking to achieve here,
too - are you looking to report, and have rectified, a GPL violation, or
are you looking for support in defence of Ikarus' claim against you, and
looking to use evidence of a GPL violation as part of your defence?

Some further thoughts inline below.

- ----

Peter Kleissner wrote:


>  There is a trial Ikarus against
> me on January 25 2010, because they accuse me of selling their source.

Have you sought legal advice from a lawyer qualified in your
jurisdiction in respect of this? If not, I would suggest that you do so.

There is no claim of "selling their source" as such - is the claim one
of copyright infringement? Or is it some form of contractual dispute? To
be able to formulate a defence, one would need to understand the nature
of the claim against you.

> When I came to Ikarus, there was already the simulator, part of the scanning
> engine, that simulates viruses until they are unpacked. My work at Ikarus
> was to improve that simulator, making it faster and better. 

Was there a contract between yourself and Ikarus for the work which you
did, which could be relevant here?


> Can someone ask Ikarus for the modified source code? If, then please put me
> in CC, then I can also show the court that they do not publish their
> modified open source upon request (if they don't give you the source).

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to prove with this,
unfortunately - demonstrating that Ikarus is infringing copyright, if
indeed it is, is unlikely to be a defence to a claim of copyright
infringement against you.

However, if you were looking to demonstrate that, under the terms of the
licences which cover the code comprising your distribution, you have the
right to make the distribution, then, if it is indeed a claim of
copyright infringement, you might have some success - but, in
litigation, nothing is guaranteed.

Because of the lack of detail in your email as to exactly what the
situation is (an observation, rather than a criticism), I've made a
number of assumptions in my thoughts below - and, as is oft-stated,
assumptions can make ass of you and me, so my thoughts may be entirely
off-base and irrelevant.


Some of my assumptions:

a.) In the code which you are distributing, there is nothing which is
the property of Ikarus, and which falls outside the scope of any open
source licensing obligations - in other words, any Ikarus proprietary code.

b.) There is no contract term in force between Ikarus and yourself which
would be relevant here.

c.) You have received the code which you are distributing in a manner
which would oblige Ikarus to grant you the right to re-distribute it.

d.) You are compliant with any upstream licensing terms in your
distribution - i.e. Ikarus is not claiming that it has granted you a
licence as required by the open source licensing terms affecting Ikarus'
modified code, but that you are failing to comply with the licensing
terms yourself.


Taking the above assumptions into account, is your argument that:

a.) Ikarus is claiming that, in distributing whatever code it is that
you are distributing, you are infringing Ikarus' copyright in respect of
that code;

b.) The code is made up of a number of modules of open source code, some
of which Ikarus has modified;

c.) The licensing of the open source modules requires that, in respect
of the modifications made by Ikarus, Ikarus grants you certain rights;

d.) The rights which Ikarus is obliged to grant to you permit you to do
what you are/were doing;

e.) Ikarus has failed to grant you those rights;

f.) Ikarus' claim is that you do not have the rights to distribute
Ikarus' modifications, but that Ikarus is obliged to grant you those rights;

- --and here it gets more complicated--

that either

g#1.) Because your infringement only arises because Ikarus has failed to
grant you a licence which Ikarus is required to grant to you, Ikarus'
claim against you should be estopped; and/or

g#2.) Because Ikarus is required to grant you a licence, even though it
has failed to do so, you should be treated as having a valid licence -
and, since you have a licence, you are not infringing copyright.

?

These are subtly different- whether Ikarus' alleged failure means that
you have a licence, or that you have no valid licence, but that Ikarus
should be prevented, in equity, from bringing a claim of copyright
against you. (Not all legal systems have a concept of estoppel / laws of
equity.)

The distinction here is between a licence term which says "You
license..." and "You must license..." - clause 2, LGPL 2.1, for example,
requires that a distributor of a modified work "must cause ... the
work... to be licensed" - it's not clear to me that there is an inherent
licence grant if the distributor decides to breach the licence terms.

This really is something which you should discuss, in respect of your
particular situation, with a lawyer qualified in your jurisdiction, to
find out if your defence, if my (many) assumptions above are correct, is
one based on you having a valid licence, or else )


Or am I off-base completely?




- --




Neil





From neil at neilzone.co.uk  Fri Jan  1 20:04:20 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:04:20 +0000
Subject: AW: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and
	ReactOS)
In-Reply-To: <003701ca8b12$1d9051b0$58b0f510$@at>
References: <001d01ca8adc$0f05d880$2d118980$@at>	<4B3E313A.8000607@neilzone.co.uk>
	<003701ca8b12$1d9051b0$58b0f510$@at>
Message-ID: <4B3E4734.9030603@neilzone.co.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Kleissner wrote:

> To explain the story: No I have not sold any line of their code, they just accuse me because of a joke (an easter egg) I've made. 

It sounds as if this part of the business is entirely without the scope
this list- but, if you have no sold any of its code, then, joke or no
joke, would Ikarus not have a difficult time proving copyright
infringement, if they cannot actually point to any of their code in your
product?


> I want report here the LGPL violation, and look for support.

Great.

> They say "giving further business secrets to the advantage of foreign countries", and say because of a program I have published (also as open source) they had to develop a new anti-virus scanner version (they are loco) and want "at least" (their words) 23.000 ? - and that is going to be discussed on January 25 in front of court.

Obviously something to discuss with your lawyer, but, proving a claim
such as this, irrespective of proving the quantum of damage, could be
difficult if, as you say, it has not actually occurred.

> Depends. If you steal open source and accuse then an ex-employee to sell the source then you should be aware that those claims do not fall back on you.

Following up on a violation report is one thing - but using a claimant's
infringement as a defence to a claim against you is not always possible
(c.f. my discussion of equity / estoppel in my previous email.)

> (for my court trial I'll get a court-appointed lawyer).

This is good news - at least you will have some representation. Do you
get to meet with them in advance?

If you have a clear, documented version of events as you see them,and a
copy of the source code of the work which you are distributing with an
explanation of the section containing the easter egg code, you might be
able to make best use of your time with your lawyer.
- --




Neil




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLPkc0r70Z7teoI3sRAtdyAJ9DOiAJZmfjy5+URzJ3xk3rZG7/WgCcCnZI
5gPPFkYqMhKdD6+y8GJnvKc=
=qcS9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From arnoud at engelfriet.net  Sat Jan  2 23:44:35 2010
From: arnoud at engelfriet.net (Arnoud Engelfriet)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 23:44:35 +0100
Subject: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and ReactOS)
In-Reply-To: <4B3E313A.8000607@neilzone.co.uk>
References: <001d01ca8adc$0f05d880$2d118980$@at>
	<4B3E313A.8000607@neilzone.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20100102224435.GA87859@stack.nl>

Neil Brown wrote:
> license..." and "You must license..." - clause 2, LGPL 2.1, for example,
> requires that a distributor of a modified work "must cause ... the
> work... to be licensed" - it's not clear to me that there is an inherent
> licence grant if the distributor decides to breach the licence terms.
> 
> This really is something which you should discuss, in respect of your
> particular situation, with a lawyer qualified in your jurisdiction, to
> find out if your defence, if my (many) assumptions above are correct, is
> one based on you having a valid licence, or else )

Agree completely. Without all the facts it is very hard to make any
kind of legal argument.

As to your last argument, GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 both have statements to the
effect that "Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on
the Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor". Arguably this applies even when a redistribution is
unauthorized, so that the OP could invoke the LGPL's rights granted to
him in a defence against the company's accusations.

However, I am not sure copyright is at all an issue. I saw a reference to
Easter Eggs, which sounds more like a bad workmanship/defamation kind
of claim. Some companies consider Easter Eggs to be unprofessional.
Or perhaps there was exposure of proprietary data (even if the software
is open source, input data sets could be confidential or proprietary).

Arnoud

-- 
IT lawyer, blogger and patent attorney ~ Associate at ICTRecht.nl legal services
        http://www.arnoud.engelfriet.net/ ~ http://www.iusmentis.com/


From neil at neilzone.co.uk  Sun Jan  3 10:31:57 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:31:57 +0000
Subject: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and ReactOS)
In-Reply-To: <20100102224435.GA87859@stack.nl>
References: <001d01ca8adc$0f05d880$2d118980$@at>	<4B3E313A.8000607@neilzone.co.uk>
	<20100102224435.GA87859@stack.nl>
Message-ID: <4B40640D.6020706@neilzone.co.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Happy new year, Arnoud!

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:

> As to your last argument, GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 both have statements to the
> effect that "Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on
> the Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor". Arguably this applies even when a redistribution is
> unauthorized, so that the OP could invoke the LGPL's rights granted to
> him in a defence against the company's accusations.

An excellent point.

> However, I am not sure copyright is at all an issue. 

On the basis of the information which Peter circulated after my
response, I agree that there is more to it than "just" a claim of
copyright infringement.




- --




Neil




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAktAZAkACgkQr70Z7teoI3vZYQCcDB03+2njFICRRnnCxayzEjsB
RncAmwX7EJYNVE6gPhqErRlSyxKFvLL8
=Beaw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From chrismc at ozarkmountain.net  Tue Jan  5 16:34:36 2010
From: chrismc at ozarkmountain.net (Chris McCracken)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:34:36 -0600
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
Message-ID: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>

HTC is distributing the Linux kernel as part of the Android operating system
on its Hero mobile phone.  While the Android OS is licensed under the Apache
Public License and does not have significant distribution restrictions, the
Linux kernel itself is licensed under the GPL.  HTC has made modifications
to the Linux kernel source code specific to its hardware, and has compiled
the modifications directly into the kernel (not using loadable modules),
thus requiring release of that source code.

There are two seperate versions of the Hero phone, with slightly different
hardware for two different mobile phone radio technologies- GSM and CDMA.
The GSM Hero was the first one released, and is used in several areas around
the world (not including the US).  In the USA, the Hero currently being
distributed is the CDMA versions, sold by Sprint.  Due to the different
radio hardware in the phones, they have different kernels.  HTC has made the
GSM kernel available on its developer.htc.com website, but for several
months (since the CDMA Hero's release Oct 11th) has been unwilling to
release the source code for its CDMA kernel.  I'm not certain if they are
intentionally withholding the information, or if they actually do not
realize that it is different source code that must also be released.

Here is a copy of the recent detailed request I sent to HTC (support ref #
591050), I will update with the reply I receive:


Request for Linux source code specific to CDMA Hero per GNU Public License
terms

Per the HTC Hero Legal Agreement, and the GNU Public License, I am
requesting the complete source code that was used to build the Linux kernel
on the CDMA Hero being distributed in the USA by Sprint.  This includes all
the source code (.c files) plus header files (.h files) plus the scripts
used to control compilation and installation of [only] the Linux kernel.
These must be the files specific to the distributed kernel version, as
follows:

Linux version 2.6.27-533ce29d (htc-kernel at and18-2) (gcc version 4.3.2
(Sourcery G++ Lite 2008q3-72) ) #742 PREEMPT Fri Aug 28 21:59:31 CST 2009

I am aware of the file available at
developer.htc.com(kernel_hero_0078c992.tar.bz2, 49.6MB), that was
released on 2009/10/22.
However, this source code is specific to the GSM model of the Hero, which is
not sold in the USA.  The source code used to produce the US-spec CDMA
Hero's kernel is different than what is contained within this file.  There
are several key source code files that are missing from this archive file,
including but not limited to:

arch/arm/mach-msm/board-heroc.c
arch/arm/mach-msm/board-heroc-keypad.c
arch/arm/mach-msm/board-heroc-panel.c
arch/arm/mach-msm/board-heroc-mmc.c
arch/arm/mach-msm/board-heroc-camsensor.c
arch/arm/mach-msm/board-heroc-rfkill.c

I would like to receive those files, plus any others that are necessary to
build the kernel as distributed on the US-spec CDMA Hero. The terms of the
GNU Public License mandate that anyone distributing the specific software
(Linux kernel) MUST make available all files used to build that software,
including any modifications that they made to that software.  HTC is
required by US and International copyright law to do so.

Please ensure that this request is handled by someone familiar with the
development of the kernel for the US-spec CDMA Hero. If this request is not
met, then HTC is required by law to cease and desist distribution of said
software (Linux kernel), which would require ceasing distribution of the
US-spec CDMA Hero phone as currently configured.

Thank you sincerely for your time in handling this matter in a competent and
detailed manner. I will expect to hear back promptly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100105/bcc79a48/attachment.htm 

From neil at neilzone.co.uk  Tue Jan  5 17:56:22 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:56:22 +0000
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100105165622.y6l4hsjpdwg00kog@neilzone.co.uk>

(Originally replied just to Chris, by accident, so copied back onto list)

Quoting Chris McCracken <chrismc at ozarkmountain.net>:

> HTC is required by US and International copyright law to do so.

This is, perhaps, a little misleading, at least to my understanding-  
HTC is required by the terms of GNU GPL to do so (as you point out  
above), not by any copyright law. If HTC does not comply with the  
terms of the licence, then, HTC may infringe copyright, but there is  
no requirement of copyright law as such to make the source code  
available.

> If this request is not
> met, then HTC is required by law to cease and desist distribution of said
> software (Linux kernel), which would require ceasing distribution of the
> US-spec CDMA Hero phone as currently configured.


Similar to the above - this may be an aspect of US law with which I am  
not familiar, but, in the UK, there is no legal requirement to cease  
distributing something, even if it is infringing copyright, without a  
court order requiring this - it's just that the distribution would  
amount to an infringement of copyright.


In any case, were the request not met, cessation of distribution would  
be insufficient, to my mind, since this only prevents future  
infringement - it does nothing to remedy past infringement.


Just my thoughts, as always!

-- 



Neil

neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk



From chrismc at ozarkmountain.net  Tue Jan  5 18:16:46 2010
From: chrismc at ozarkmountain.net (Chris McCracken)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:16:46 -0600
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <20100105165622.y6l4hsjpdwg00kog@neilzone.co.uk>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com> 
	<20100105165622.y6l4hsjpdwg00kog@neilzone.co.uk>
Message-ID: <b5eede951001050916x3b85e8e1i44ca52d6d0c530e@mail.gmail.com>

I would agree that its not terribly clear on the legal ramifications. The
inference I'm making is that the law says that you have to honor the
copyright wishes and licenses of the copyright holder.  Since I'm sending it
to tech support, and not the legal department (nor would I send to legal,
since IANAL), I didn't want to get too particular about the legalities.  I
intentionally avoided writing anything threatening, and instead kept the
tone just "informational" enough to get their attention. I'm hoping to
resolve the issue with a specific request from techie-to-techie and no legal
intervention, but wanted things to be well documented in case it comes to
that.

Thanks for your insight, and I'll post up if I hear (or don't hear) anything
from them.

-Chris

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:56, Neil Brown <neil at neilzone.co.uk> wrote:

> (Originally replied just to Chris, by accident, so copied back onto list)
>
>
> Quoting Chris McCracken <chrismc at ozarkmountain.net>:
>
>  HTC is required by US and International copyright law to do so.
>>
>
> This is, perhaps, a little misleading, at least to my understanding- HTC is
> required by the terms of GNU GPL to do so (as you point out above), not by
> any copyright law. If HTC does not comply with the terms of the licence,
> then, HTC may infringe copyright, but there is no requirement of copyright
> law as such to make the source code available.
>
>  If this request is not
>> met, then HTC is required by law to cease and desist distribution of said
>> software (Linux kernel), which would require ceasing distribution of the
>> US-spec CDMA Hero phone as currently configured.
>>
>
>
> Similar to the above - this may be an aspect of US law with which I am not
> familiar, but, in the UK, there is no legal requirement to cease
> distributing something, even if it is infringing copyright, without a court
> order requiring this - it's just that the distribution would amount to an
> infringement of copyright.
>
>
> In any case, were the request not met, cessation of distribution would be
> insufficient, to my mind, since this only prevents future infringement - it
> does nothing to remedy past infringement.
>
>
> Just my thoughts, as always!
>
> --
>
>
>
> Neil
>
> neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100105/b2788b23/attachment.htm 

From neil at neilzone.co.uk  Tue Jan  5 18:47:16 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:47:16 +0000
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <b5eede951001050916x3b85e8e1i44ca52d6d0c530e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100105165622.y6l4hsjpdwg00kog@neilzone.co.uk>
	<b5eede951001050916x3b85e8e1i44ca52d6d0c530e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B437B24.7030203@neilzone.co.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chris McCracken wrote:

> I'm hoping to resolve the issue with a specific request from
> techie-to-techie and no legal intervention,

Sounds a sensible approach to me.

- --




Neil


neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLQ3skr70Z7teoI3sRAkFoAJ9ehwT9mL64ZJIVcgv+KJ/OcDYW3ACfcd7G
zIHgpwuV1iphOsgCQeWm0io=
=HmsV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From Peter at Kleissner.at  Tue Jan  5 19:47:08 2010
From: Peter at Kleissner.at (Peter Kleissner)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:47:08 +0100
Subject: AW: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and ReactOS)
In-Reply-To: <246121.83149.qm@web111309.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <001d01ca8adc$0f05d880$2d118980$@at>
	<4B3E313A.8000607@neilzone.co.uk>
	<246121.83149.qm@web111309.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003d01ca8e37$7c5919c0$750b4d40$@at>

Thanks for your responses. I was busy the last days with the lawsuits I got
- Ikarus sued me now a third time. They accuse me of "offering and selling
the Ikarus source internationally over the internet" - which source is
itself based on open source (this is the reason why I turned here).

I got big question to you: How do you normally proof a GPL violation? Do you
also use specialized programs that do analysis of the binaries, do you
provide the court a disassembly, a comparison, memory diffs etc.? Maybe
anyone can send me lawsuit complaint of a GPL violation?

Since Ikarus has put the entire bochs into their product without
modification (just putting a class on top of it) it won't be much work to
make a memory & assembly diff. Let me know if you know some good automatic
tools for that, I will also do it manually (I am assembly language
developer, so that will not be that difficult for me :).

Kind regards,

Peter Kleissner


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Andreas Kuehne [mailto:akuehne at yahoo.com] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 03. J?nner 2010 12:00
An: Peter Kleissner
Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
Betreff: Re: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and
ReactOS)

Hi Peter,
due to bad experience a colleague once had I would recommend to stop any
activities 'parallel' to your own court trial. 
My colleague's case ended up that he was claimed guilty for the copyright
violations he once complained about. His employer let it look like that he
was responsible for the use of the copyrighted software and the employer
doesn't know anything about it.

This should not happen to you !

Greetings

Andreas

----- Original Message ----
From: Neil Brown <neil at neilzone.co.uk>
To: Peter Kleissner <Peter at Kleissner.at>
Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org; christianembacher at gmx.at
Sent: Fri, January 1, 2010 6:30:34 PM
Subject: Re: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and
ReactOS)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter

**This is not legal advice**

This looks to be an even more complex situation than usual, to my mind-

a.) You appear to have had a past (employment/contracting) relationship
with Ikarus;
b.) You are engaged in litigation with Ikarus; and
c.) There is an alleged infringement of open source licences.

However, each of these could impact the situation differently, and, for
this reason, I would strongly advise that you seek independent legal
advice in advance of your court appearance.

It is rather unclear to me quite what you are looking to achieve here,
too - are you looking to report, and have rectified, a GPL violation, or
are you looking for support in defence of Ikarus' claim against you, and
looking to use evidence of a GPL violation as part of your defence?

Some further thoughts inline below.

- ----

Peter Kleissner wrote:


>  There is a trial Ikarus against
> me on January 25 2010, because they accuse me of selling their source.

Have you sought legal advice from a lawyer qualified in your
jurisdiction in respect of this? If not, I would suggest that you do so.

There is no claim of "selling their source" as such - is the claim one
of copyright infringement? Or is it some form of contractual dispute? To
be able to formulate a defence, one would need to understand the nature
of the claim against you.

> When I came to Ikarus, there was already the simulator, part of the
scanning
> engine, that simulates viruses until they are unpacked. My work at Ikarus
> was to improve that simulator, making it faster and better. 

Was there a contract between yourself and Ikarus for the work which you
did, which could be relevant here?


> Can someone ask Ikarus for the modified source code? If, then please put
me
> in CC, then I can also show the court that they do not publish their
> modified open source upon request (if they don't give you the source).

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to prove with this,
unfortunately - demonstrating that Ikarus is infringing copyright, if
indeed it is, is unlikely to be a defence to a claim of copyright
infringement against you.

However, if you were looking to demonstrate that, under the terms of the
licences which cover the code comprising your distribution, you have the
right to make the distribution, then, if it is indeed a claim of
copyright infringement, you might have some success - but, in
litigation, nothing is guaranteed.

Because of the lack of detail in your email as to exactly what the
situation is (an observation, rather than a criticism), I've made a
number of assumptions in my thoughts below - and, as is oft-stated,
assumptions can make ass of you and me, so my thoughts may be entirely
off-base and irrelevant.


Some of my assumptions:

a.) In the code which you are distributing, there is nothing which is
the property of Ikarus, and which falls outside the scope of any open
source licensing obligations - in other words, any Ikarus proprietary code.

b.) There is no contract term in force between Ikarus and yourself which
would be relevant here.

c.) You have received the code which you are distributing in a manner
which would oblige Ikarus to grant you the right to re-distribute it.

d.) You are compliant with any upstream licensing terms in your
distribution - i.e. Ikarus is not claiming that it has granted you a
licence as required by the open source licensing terms affecting Ikarus'
modified code, but that you are failing to comply with the licensing
terms yourself.


Taking the above assumptions into account, is your argument that:

a.) Ikarus is claiming that, in distributing whatever code it is that
you are distributing, you are infringing Ikarus' copyright in respect of
that code;

b.) The code is made up of a number of modules of open source code, some
of which Ikarus has modified;

c.) The licensing of the open source modules requires that, in respect
of the modifications made by Ikarus, Ikarus grants you certain rights;

d.) The rights which Ikarus is obliged to grant to you permit you to do
what you are/were doing;

e.) Ikarus has failed to grant you those rights;

f.) Ikarus' claim is that you do not have the rights to distribute
Ikarus' modifications, but that Ikarus is obliged to grant you those rights;

- --and here it gets more complicated--

that either

g#1.) Because your infringement only arises because Ikarus has failed to
grant you a licence which Ikarus is required to grant to you, Ikarus'
claim against you should be estopped; and/or

g#2.) Because Ikarus is required to grant you a licence, even though it
has failed to do so, you should be treated as having a valid licence -
and, since you have a licence, you are not infringing copyright.

?

These are subtly different- whether Ikarus' alleged failure means that
you have a licence, or that you have no valid licence, but that Ikarus
should be prevented, in equity, from bringing a claim of copyright
against you. (Not all legal systems have a concept of estoppel / laws of
equity.)

The distinction here is between a licence term which says "You
license..." and "You must license..." - clause 2, LGPL 2.1, for example,
requires that a distributor of a modified work "must cause ... the
work... to be licensed" - it's not clear to me that there is an inherent
licence grant if the distributor decides to breach the licence terms.

This really is something which you should discuss, in respect of your
particular situation, with a lawyer qualified in your jurisdiction, to
find out if your defence, if my (many) assumptions above are correct, is
one based on you having a valid licence, or else )


Or am I off-base completely?




- --




Neil


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAks+MToACgkQr70Z7teoI3sfpwCfSGjPACSLdsMjoZQAxHk+2Vsf
Oa0Amwd8w/m03dq87hy8KhbxhJuR7XVr
=Z5pp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From luca at ventoso.org  Tue Jan  5 19:49:37 2010
From: luca at ventoso.org (Luca Olivetti)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:49:37 +0100
Subject: LG violates gpl? take 2
Message-ID: <4B4389C1.2040408@ventoso.org>

Hello,
I searched the list archive and I saw a thread regarding a possible gpl 
violation with LG

http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2009-October/thread.html

in it Kim Kyoungae told that they honor requests sent to opensource at 
lge dot com (an address I just contacted, but see below) and Valent 
Turkovic promised to report back when he received the sources.
I saw no follow-up message from Valent, if you are here did you receive 
the sources?

Now, I found some LG sources floating on the net, and I hope that those 
are not the sources that LG is sending because what I found is not in 
compliance with the GPL (as per the source release FAQ):

1) the kernel is missing some drivers for the specific mstar embedded 
board (there's a symbolic link pointing to a non-existent directory)

2) the makefile tries to build a non-existent utility named ccdv (again, 
it's in a directory not included in the archive)

3) even with those bits removed, the kernel doesn't compile

4) point 3 above could be due to a wrong compiler: the original kernel 
is built with a montavista patched gcc 3.4.3 (gcc version 3.4.3 
(MontaVista 3.4.3-25.0.70.0501961 2005-12-18)), which isn't included, so 
I built my own gcc 3.4.3 mipsel cross-compiler

The file I found is a zip archive with the following md5sum

27e86d2f2e30ca3d02b3b2864f1b4ab7

its contents are:

   Length     Date   Time    Name
  --------    ----   ----    ----
   2408028  07-20-09 15:50   busybox/20090709155148_busybox-1.10.1.tar.gz
      8807  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_compr_lzo.c
      3334  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzo1.h
      3338  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzo1a.h
      6085  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzo1b.h
      6082  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzo1c.h
      3773  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzo1f.h
      6561  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzo1x.h
      5337  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzo1y.h
      5414  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzo1z.h
      3227  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzo2a.h
     14090  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzoconf.h
     65826  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzodefs.h
      2512  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzoutil.h
      5769  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_lzo_asm.h
    129428  07-20-09 15:50   lzo/20090709155148_minilzo.c
   1795905  07-06-09 13:49   uclibc/uClibc-0.9.28.3.tar.bz2
      6158  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_nxdraw.c
      3295  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_nxtransform.c
      7822  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_nxutil.c
     22524  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_serv.h
        97  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_srvclip.c
      9952  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_srvclip1.c
      6013  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_srvclip2.c
     30757  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_srvevent.c
    100272  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_srvfunc.c
     21708  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_srvmain.c
     33443  07-20-09 15:50   nanox/20090709155149_srvutil.c
  66248585  07-20-09 15:50 
linux_kernel/20090709155139_linux-2.6.26-saturn6.tgz
  --------                   -------
  70964142                   29 files

the md5sum of 20090709155139_linux-2.6.26-saturn6.tgz (the only file I 
dealt with up to now) is

36483b84bad7865fd9937db6700d6f25

Kim, Valent, could you verify that this indeed is a wrong file and LG is 
really supplying fully compliant GPL sources?


Bye
-- 
Luca



From cdibona at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 20:28:36 2010
From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:28:36 -0800
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <20100105165622.y6l4hsjpdwg00kog@neilzone.co.uk>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100105165622.y6l4hsjpdwg00kog@neilzone.co.uk>
Message-ID: <7d9492d91001051128u4182d49eh9d77c2968c7e7dcd@mail.gmail.com>

As an fyi, we're looking into the issue from the google side. It's an
HTC made and marketed phone, so it's not as clear a line as we might
like there for us. So, I can't really take responsibility for HTC
shipped phones.

But, you can yell at me for nexus issues, if you find any. I will note
that for documentation requirements, you might find what you are
looking for in the about->legal section on the phone. We build a nice
docs compiler that exposes the software licenses to any users.

Chris

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Neil Brown <neil at neilzone.co.uk> wrote:
> (Originally replied just to Chris, by accident, so copied back onto list)
>
> Quoting Chris McCracken <chrismc at ozarkmountain.net>:
>
>> HTC is required by US and International copyright law to do so.
>
> This is, perhaps, a little misleading, at least to my understanding- HTC is
> required by the terms of GNU GPL to do so (as you point out above), not by
> any copyright law. If HTC does not comply with the terms of the licence,
> then, HTC may infringe copyright, but there is no requirement of copyright
> law as such to make the source code available.
>
>> If this request is not
>> met, then HTC is required by law to cease and desist distribution of said
>> software (Linux kernel), which would require ceasing distribution of the
>> US-spec CDMA Hero phone as currently configured.
>
>
> Similar to the above - this may be an aspect of US law with which I am not
> familiar, but, in the UK, there is no legal requirement to cease
> distributing something, even if it is infringing copyright, without a court
> order requiring this - it's just that the distribution would amount to an
> infringement of copyright.
>
>
> In any case, were the request not met, cessation of distribution would be
> insufficient, to my mind, since this only prevents future infringement - it
> does nothing to remedy past infringement.
>
>
> Just my thoughts, as always!
>
> --
>
>
>
> Neil
>
> neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk
>
>
>



-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com


From luca at ventoso.org  Wed Jan  6 13:22:14 2010
From: luca at ventoso.org (Luca Olivetti)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:22:14 +0100
Subject: LG violates gpl? take 2
In-Reply-To: <C662FC65-BF21-496F-9FA3-B4A1617DEB45@lge.com>
References: <4B4389C1.2040408@ventoso.org>
	<C662FC65-BF21-496F-9FA3-B4A1617DEB45@lge.com>
Message-ID: <4B448076.2080208@ventoso.org>

En/na Kyoungae Kim ha escrit:
> Hi. 
> 
> I'm Kyoungae Kim who is in charge of license issue in LGE.
> 
> 1) We mistakenly missed mstar device driver in initial distribution, 
> however we recently include it in the source code distribution.
> Unfortunately you've found the old version on the net. 

That's what I hoped, but see below.

> 2) ccdv is not relevant to kernel source code directly. 
> We think we don't need to distribute the ccdv because we can build 
> kernel without ccdv. 
> If distributing the ccdv code is mandatory to be compliance with GPL, we 
> can eagerly distribute it also. 

I don't know what ccdv is and if it's needed or not. If it's not needed 
to rebuild the exact same kernel running on the tv, simply remove it 
from the kernel makefile.

> 
> 3) To help your compiling work, we'll distribute the toolchain with the 
> source code also.

Very good, thank you!


> You requested the source code to opensource at lge dot com as I know. 
> You can receive the way to access our system and download the source code. 

Yes, I received your message and replied with the requested data, but I 
wonder why you don't simply put the sources on a publicly accessible 
ftp/web server, like many other manufacturers are doing: since anybody 
is entitled to redistribute the sources anyways, keeping them under 
wraps can only generate the kind of problems I had.

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Bye
-- 
Luca


From chrismc at ozarkmountain.net  Fri Jan  8 16:55:40 2010
From: chrismc at ozarkmountain.net (Chris McCracken)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:55:40 -0600
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5eede951001080755p6fa8be62wc0d6b2641e34906a@mail.gmail.com>

What is a reasonable length of time to wait to hear back regarding a GPL
source code request?  This day four since I submitted the request, and so
far the only reply I received was a fairly generic one shortly after I
submitted the request:

"Your request has been forwarded to the proper department. If they can
assist you, then they will get in touch with you using the contact
information that you provided."

I realize these things take time, but I'd like to see at least a
confirmation that I'm not being ignored. I'd be content with a simple reply
stating "Hi, I'm xxxxx from the xxxxx department. I'm working on this. You
can contact me at xxxxx to followup."  Right now I feel like my request
disappeared into a black hole.

-Chris


On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 09:34, Chris McCracken <chrismc at ozarkmountain.net>wrote:

> <snip>
>
>
> Request for Linux source code specific to CDMA Hero per GNU Public License
> terms
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100108/6cbc6177/attachment.htm 

From luca at ventoso.org  Fri Jan  8 20:27:15 2010
From: luca at ventoso.org (Luca Olivetti)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:27:15 +0100
Subject: LG violates gpl? take 2
In-Reply-To: <4B448076.2080208@ventoso.org>
References: <4B4389C1.2040408@ventoso.org>	<C662FC65-BF21-496F-9FA3-B4A1617DEB45@lge.com>
	<4B448076.2080208@ventoso.org>
Message-ID: <4B478713.20806@ventoso.org>

En/na Luca Olivetti ha escrit:

> 
>> You requested the source code to opensource at lge dot com as I know. 
>> You can receive the way to access our system and download the source 
>> code. 
> 
> Yes, I received your message and replied with the requested data, but I 
> wonder why you don't simply put the sources on a publicly accessible 
> ftp/web server, like many other manufacturers are doing: since anybody 
> is entitled to redistribute the sources anyways, keeping them under 
> wraps can only generate the kind of problems I had.

Ok, I downloaded the sources and the toolchain, but I still think there 
are some problems:

1) the driver for bluetooth_lge is provided only in binary form 
(bt_usb.lgko). Since it's linked in the kernel I think it should be 
provided in source form.

2) The kernel builds[*] but I cannot produce a kernel image 
corresponding to the image running in my tv: the image in the firmware 
is 2176399 bytes and the uImage resulting from the compilation is 
2166241. Either this is a different kernel, a different 
configuration[**] or a different set of tools.

[*] apart from various warnings, there are many 
"CONFIG_MSTAR_TITANIA_BD_something not defined" messages regardless of 
the configuration used.

[**] I tried all the supplied configurations, though I think that, being 
my set a plasma tv, the correct one should be config-flash-pdp

3) No tool is provided to create an installable firmware image. I know 
that the firmware contains non-gpl parts, but those can be provided in 
binary form.

Bye
-- 
Luca


From arnoud at engelfriet.net  Sat Jan  9 09:23:07 2010
From: arnoud at engelfriet.net (Arnoud Engelfriet)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:23:07 +0100
Subject: Ikarus Security Software violating LGPL (Bochs, WINE and ReactOS)
In-Reply-To: <003d01ca8e37$7c5919c0$750b4d40$@at>
References: <001d01ca8adc$0f05d880$2d118980$@at>
	<4B3E313A.8000607@neilzone.co.uk>
	<246121.83149.qm@web111309.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<003d01ca8e37$7c5919c0$750b4d40$@at>
Message-ID: <20100109082307.GA26583@stack.nl>

Peter Kleissner wrote:
> Thanks for your responses. I was busy the last days with the lawsuits I got
> - Ikarus sued me now a third time. They accuse me of "offering and selling
> the Ikarus source internationally over the internet" - which source is
> itself based on open source (this is the reason why I turned here).

You really need a lawyer who can advise you on where you stand under
the law of your country.

It is not a given that because the program is based on GPL code, the
program itself is GPL as a whole. Even though this is how the GPL is
supposed to work, the GPL licensing is not automatic. The company has
to explicitly /approve/ of the GPL before the GPL extends to its own
contributions to the code.

The company might be violating the GPL by distributing a derivative
work without complying with the GPL, but that does not mean that
you are in the right by making the source available. You may well be
violating the company's copyright on its contributions by distributing
these in source code form.

In other words, the assertion "their contributions must be GPL 
therefore they *are* GPL" is not correct.

> I got big question to you: How do you normally proof a GPL violation? Do you
> also use specialized programs that do analysis of the binaries, do you
> provide the court a disassembly, a comparison, memory diffs etc.? Maybe
> anyone can send me lawsuit complaint of a GPL violation?

You can prove it in any way that convinces a judge (or, if applicable,
a jury). This could be as simple as applying strings(1) to the binaries
or showing that the program produces "Copyright Linus Torvalds" when
you run it with --version. 

However, once again: even if you prove that the company violated the
GPL, this does not necessarily help your case. If you are distributing
their contributions, you must show that you have permission *from them*
to distribute these. A requirement in the GPL is irrelevant for you,
as the company has not (as far as we can tell) accepted the GPL.

They might be infringing copyright or violating the GPL, but that is
between them and the copyright holders of the GPL code in question.

About the only thing you can realistically do is present the GPL
violation to them and tell them "please stop your lawsuit or I will
inform the copyright holders of the GPL code you used and they will
sue you." I hope that scares them enough to comply with your demand.

If it doesn't, you can inform the copyright holders and hope they
take the company to court. If they do that, you can ask the judge in
your case to suspend your case until the copyright lawsuit has been
resolved, because that lawsuit will significantly affect your case.
If the copyright holders don't want to act, then you have a serious
problem.

Arnoud

-- 
IT lawyer, blogger and patent attorney ~ Associate at ICTRecht.nl legal services
        http://www.arnoud.engelfriet.net/ ~ http://www.iusmentis.com/


From macpaul at gmail.com  Sat Jan  9 11:25:42 2010
From: macpaul at gmail.com (Macpaul Lin)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 18:25:42 +0800
Subject: Hello all, I have a WiMAX firmware from GCT Solution, It seems uses 
	Linux Kernel....
Message-ID: <cf0307481001090225p1d512964o469e44405945122d@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I'm using the testing Internet service from VMAX  (ISP) and I get a
USB Dongle which is made by TECO.
This WiMAX USB dongle uses GCT's solution.
And I found a firmware which installed in my system "gdmuimg.bin"
which might be a linux kernel + jffs2 file system.
However I've not receive the source code from GCT nor from TECO.
Could some on help me to check if the firmware is exactly used Linux
kernel + jffs2 file system?
I've upload gdmuimg.bin to rapidshare.
You can download it from this link.
http://rapidshare.com/files/332598023/gdmuimg.bin.html

Thanks a lot.

-- 
Best regards,
Macpaul Lin


From neil at neilzone.co.uk  Sun Jan 10 11:20:45 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:20:45 +0000
Subject: Hello all, I have a WiMAX firmware from GCT Solution, It seems
	uses Linux Kernel....
In-Reply-To: <cf0307481001090225p1d512964o469e44405945122d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cf0307481001090225p1d512964o469e44405945122d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B49A9FD.5080507@neilzone.co.uk>

Macpaul Lin wrote:

> You can download it from this link.

I tried to download it, but RapidShare is saying that there are no slots
available. Does anyone have a copy hosted somewhere less restricted?


Thanks

-- 




Neil

neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk



From macpaul at gmail.com  Sun Jan 10 13:07:43 2010
From: macpaul at gmail.com (Macpaul Lin)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:07:43 +0800
Subject: Hello all, I have a WiMAX firmware from GCT Solution, It seems 
	uses Linux Kernel....
In-Reply-To: <4B49A9FD.5080507@neilzone.co.uk>
References: <cf0307481001090225p1d512964o469e44405945122d@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4B49A9FD.5080507@neilzone.co.uk>
Message-ID: <cf0307481001100407v20d97e02r754644a8dafb8d31@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

GCT announced they are using MIPS based CPU for WIMAX chip.
I send the firmware in rar archive directly to Neil since Gmail
doesn't allow me to send a .bin or a .zip file. :)
It seem the firmware has a header before the kernel start.

2010/1/10 Neil Brown <neil at neilzone.co.uk>:
> Macpaul Lin wrote:
>
>> You can download it from this link.
>
> I tried to download it, but RapidShare is saying that there are no slots
> available. Does anyone have a copy hosted somewhere less restricted?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> Neil
>
> neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Macpaul Lin


From neil at neilzone.co.uk  Sun Jan 10 14:23:50 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:23:50 +0000
Subject: Hello all, I have a WiMAX firmware from GCT Solution, It seems
	uses Linux Kernel....
In-Reply-To: <cf0307481001090225p1d512964o469e44405945122d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cf0307481001090225p1d512964o469e44405945122d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B49D4E6.7010007@neilzone.co.uk>

Macpaul Lin wrote:

> Could some on help me to check if the firmware is exactly used Linux
> kernel + jffs2 file system?

I am no expert in the field of reverse-engineering, and base all I know
on Armijn's excellent guide, but, running strings against the binary
produces:

linux
bradchoi
2009-09-14 20:50:09
incomplete literal tree
incomplete distance tree
bad gzip magic numbers
internal error, invalid method
Input is encrypted
Multi part input
Input has invalid flags
invalid compressed format (err=1)
invalid compressed format (err=2)
out of memory
invalid compressed format (other)
crc error
length error
Malloc error
Memory error
Out of memory
ran out of input data
 -- System halted
Uncompressing Linux...
 done, booting the kernel.



-- 




Neil

neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk



From chihchun at kalug.linux.org.tw  Sun Jan 10 17:25:02 2010
From: chihchun at kalug.linux.org.tw (Rex Tsai)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:25:02 +0800
Subject: Hello all, I have a WiMAX firmware from GCT Solution, It seems
	uses Linux Kernel....
In-Reply-To: <cf0307481001100658j26c8b46ar35f14b1f8487276f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cf0307481001090225p1d512964o469e44405945122d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B49D4E6.7010007@neilzone.co.uk>
	<cf0307481001100658j26c8b46ar35f14b1f8487276f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B49FF5E.7020305@kalug.linux.org.tw>

Macpaul Lin wrote on 01/10/2010 10:58 PM:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Neil Brown <neil at neilzone.co.uk>
> Date: 2010/1/10
> Subject: Re: Hello all, I have a WiMAX firmware from GCT Solution, It
> seems uses Linux Kernel....
> To: Macpaul Lin <macpaul at gmail.com>
> ??? Legel List of GPL Violations <legal at lists.gpl-violations.org>
>
> Macpaul Lin wrote:
>   
>> Could some on help me to check if the firmware is exactly used Linux
>> kernel + jffs2 file system?
>>     
>
> I am no expert in the field of reverse-engineering, and base all I know
> on Armijn's excellent guide, but, running strings against the binary
> produces:
>   
Hi, I have done some study on the firmware.  The image file come from
the installed directory of VMAX[1] wimax connection manager for Windows.
The usb dongle is made by TECOM[2], model name is WM5123-2G5. The driver
is stored in the usb dongle, as ZeroCD / "flip flop" (multiple device)
USB gear.

In Neil's mail, you can see it contains a linux kernel image. And it's
also contains a root filesystem formated as cramfs. The root filesystem
use busybox, and their own property binary for  OMA-DM or so. Enclosed
you can find the details of the finding.

[1] http://www.vmax.net.tw/
[2]  http://www.tecomproduct.com/product_wimax.htm

Regards
-Rex
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20100111001040-screenlog
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1213 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100111/a35ebe91/attachment.obj 

From chrismc at ozarkmountain.net  Mon Jan 11 15:50:38 2010
From: chrismc at ozarkmountain.net (Chris McCracken)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:50:38 -0600
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <606e87f01001110531v4aa5f8f5vc1238273585d9530@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com> 
	<b5eede951001080755p6fa8be62wc0d6b2641e34906a@mail.gmail.com> 
	<606e87f01001110531v4aa5f8f5vc1238273585d9530@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5eede951001110650j5b30fa65j387ca049d821a8ee@mail.gmail.com>

They won't even give me that convenience. Here's the latest reply when I
simply asked for a phone number or other contact information to check on the
status of my request (the evasiveness of their reply speaks for itself):

Dear Chris,
>
> I have forwarded your information as I stated previously. I can not give
> out information of anyone in this company nor can I give you a timeline as
> to when your request may be answered. All I can do is what I have previously
> done and will do again and escalate your request. Thank you for your
> understanding in this matter.
>
> Regards,
> HTC Support
>

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 07:31, Quiliro Ord??ez <quiliro at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I suggest you call them to verify where your email went.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100111/d80eb8a1/attachment.htm 

From twaffle at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 16:57:23 2010
From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:57:23 -0500
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <b5eede951001110650j5b30fa65j387ca049d821a8ee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001080755p6fa8be62wc0d6b2641e34906a@mail.gmail.com>
	<606e87f01001110531v4aa5f8f5vc1238273585d9530@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001110650j5b30fa65j387ca049d821a8ee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <30dfe2a81001110757y638b1ba3k55014ab16e1a3caf@mail.gmail.com>

  My understanding from the xda forums is that they have stated they
would be releasing the source over the weekend.  Perhaps Chris D can
shed some insight if he knows anything.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Chris McCracken
<chrismc at ozarkmountain.net> wrote:
> They won't even give me that convenience. Here's the latest reply when I
> simply asked for a phone number or other contact information to check on the
> status of my request (the evasiveness of their reply speaks for itself):
>
>> Dear Chris,
>>
>> I have forwarded your information as I stated previously. I can not give
>> out information of anyone in this company nor can I give you a timeline as
>> to when your request may be answered. All I can do is what I have previously
>> done and will do again and escalate your request. Thank you for your
>> understanding in this matter.
>>
>> Regards,
>> HTC Support
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 07:31, Quiliro Ord??ez <quiliro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I suggest you call them to verify where your email went.
>>
>
>



-- 
-- Thomas


From cdibona at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 21:40:54 2010
From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:40:54 -0800
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a81001110757y638b1ba3k55014ab16e1a3caf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001080755p6fa8be62wc0d6b2641e34906a@mail.gmail.com>
	<606e87f01001110531v4aa5f8f5vc1238273585d9530@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001110650j5b30fa65j387ca049d821a8ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<30dfe2a81001110757y638b1ba3k55014ab16e1a3caf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d9492d91001111240r7047dce3k64b327cd7f817b54@mail.gmail.com>

I feel the need to put a fine point on this: While we are happy to forward
on to htc and have done so, we are not the shipping vendor in this case.
HTCs Hero compliance issues are not Google's responsiblity.

Chris

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com> wrote:

>  My understanding from the xda forums is that they have stated they
> would be releasing the source over the weekend.  Perhaps Chris D can
> shed some insight if he knows anything.
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Chris McCracken
> <chrismc at ozarkmountain.net> wrote:
> > They won't even give me that convenience. Here's the latest reply when I
> > simply asked for a phone number or other contact information to check on
> the
> > status of my request (the evasiveness of their reply speaks for itself):
> >
> >> Dear Chris,
> >>
> >> I have forwarded your information as I stated previously. I can not give
> >> out information of anyone in this company nor can I give you a timeline
> as
> >> to when your request may be answered. All I can do is what I have
> previously
> >> done and will do again and escalate your request. Thank you for your
> >> understanding in this matter.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> HTC Support
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 07:31, Quiliro Ord??ez <quiliro at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I suggest you call them to verify where your email went.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Thomas
>
>


-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100111/6e9d0b43/attachment.htm 

From chrismc at ozarkmountain.net  Tue Jan 12 02:09:24 2010
From: chrismc at ozarkmountain.net (Chris McCracken)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:09:24 -0600
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <b5eede951001110650j5b30fa65j387ca049d821a8ee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001080755p6fa8be62wc0d6b2641e34906a@mail.gmail.com>
	<606e87f01001110531v4aa5f8f5vc1238273585d9530@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001110650j5b30fa65j387ca049d821a8ee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5eede951001111709p74947b89y9852d628d199eec7@mail.gmail.com>

So, assuming that HTC intends to completely ignore GPL source requests
(which looks more likely by the day), is there *realistically* anything that
can be done or does the big guy on the block just "get away with" violating
the GPL until a kernel developer takes legal action?  Its too bad we didn't
have a planted reporter at their recent Nexus One press conference where we
could have put their CEO on the spot in front of a big audience.  What does
it take to get their attention and to have them take this seriously? At what
point does one give up and accept that they can just take whatever OSS code
they please, licensing be damned?

-Chris

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 08:50, Chris McCracken <chrismc at ozarkmountain.net>wrote:

>
> Dear Chris,
>>
>> I have forwarded your information as I stated previously. I can not give
>> out information of anyone in this company nor can I give you a timeline as
>> to when your request may be answered. All I can do is what I have previously
>> done and will do again and escalate your request. Thank you for your
>> understanding in this matter.
>>
>> Regards,
>> HTC Support
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100111/e1c0e3d7/attachment.htm 

From cdibona at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 04:50:47 2010
From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:50:47 -0800
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <b5eede951001111709p74947b89y9852d628d199eec7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001080755p6fa8be62wc0d6b2641e34906a@mail.gmail.com>
	<606e87f01001110531v4aa5f8f5vc1238273585d9530@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001110650j5b30fa65j387ca049d821a8ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001111709p74947b89y9852d628d199eec7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d9492d91001111950ge08a1f6ue69aef33c4361942@mail.gmail.com>

I think your email comes off as pretty angry. HTC has been slow to put up a
mirror, but you haven't looking into letter of the license documentation
compliance (which if you visit about -> legal in the phone menu should be
there) I also think that maybe they need to learn how to be faster about
this kind of thing, but to assume this comes from a malicious intent seems
misguided and only serves to drive people away from using gpl'd components
in their software.

Chris

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Chris McCracken
<chrismc at ozarkmountain.net>wrote:

> So, assuming that HTC intends to completely ignore GPL source requests
> (which looks more likely by the day), is there *realistically* anything that
> can be done or does the big guy on the block just "get away with" violating
> the GPL until a kernel developer takes legal action?  Its too bad we didn't
> have a planted reporter at their recent Nexus One press conference where we
> could have put their CEO on the spot in front of a big audience.  What does
> it take to get their attention and to have them take this seriously? At what
> point does one give up and accept that they can just take whatever OSS code
> they please, licensing be damned?
>
> -Chris
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 08:50, Chris McCracken <chrismc at ozarkmountain.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Chris,
>>>
>>> I have forwarded your information as I stated previously. I can not give
>>> out information of anyone in this company nor can I give you a timeline as
>>> to when your request may be answered. All I can do is what I have previously
>>> done and will do again and escalate your request. Thank you for your
>>> understanding in this matter.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> HTC Support
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100111/84240cea/attachment.htm 

From chrismc at ozarkmountain.net  Tue Jan 12 05:55:51 2010
From: chrismc at ozarkmountain.net (Chris McCracken)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:55:51 -0600
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <7d9492d91001111950ge08a1f6ue69aef33c4361942@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001080755p6fa8be62wc0d6b2641e34906a@mail.gmail.com>
	<606e87f01001110531v4aa5f8f5vc1238273585d9530@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001110650j5b30fa65j387ca049d821a8ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001111709p74947b89y9852d628d199eec7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7d9492d91001111950ge08a1f6ue69aef33c4361942@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5eede951001112055x6b301398uac3751bc5a93776d@mail.gmail.com>

<rant>
I *am* a bit angry. HTC has been refusing to provide the CDMA Hero kernel
source to not just myself, but a whole community of developers since they
first started delivering the phone Oct 9th, 2009. They have refused to
acknowledge that there is any difference between the source used to build
the GSM Hero and that used for the CDMA Hero (which has been proven false).
I started this process to generate a full paper trail of their refusal to
provide the source after seeing developers be shot down by HTC time after
time (unfortunately without a lot of documentation of their transactions).

If this were an isolated occurrence, it could easily be written off as an
oversight.  However, HTC has built a history of being far less than
forthcoming with GPL requests. I have used the exact procedure they specify
for GPL requests, and I am not seeing anyone there take the least bit of
responsibility for handling my inquiry. In fact, they seem to be going out
of their way to avoid taking responsibility or for having any personal
accountability whatsoever. If HTC has *any* valid legal or technical reason
for NOT distributing the full CDMA kernel source, they have not publicly
shared it.
</rant>

Chris D,
I read all four entries under the "Legal->About" reader (HTC legal, Sprint
legal, Open source licenses, and Google legal), actually before you had
suggested it the first time. I have since reread it after both times you
suggested I do so. I'm trying to read between the lines that I might be
missing something there, but I'm not getting it.  The most relevant
information I can find is in the "HTC legal" document:

"Until the date that is three years after you acquired the Software, you may
> obtain a copy of the source code corresponding to the binaries for
> GPL-licensed file by sending a request to HTC customer service at
> www.htc.com, and HTC will send you a link to such source code."
>

Typos are theirs, not mine. I followed that procedure to the letter. I used
the online customer service system on www.htc.com, and very specifically
outlined exactly what GPL source code I was requesting (Linux kernel only,
for CDMA Hero as distributed by Sprint).

I don't believe that HTC has malicious intent.  However, I do believe that
HTC is not taking their GPL obligation seriously. Buying-in to OSS has many
great benefits for commercial organizations. However, it also requires due
diligence and honoring the requests of those that have developed the
software. HTC's record of behavior in honoring GPL requests is doing nothing
at this point besides alienating OSS developers.  That is bad for Linux, bad
for Android, bad for HTC, and by association bad for Google. I want the
Android platform to grow just as much as everyone at HTC and Google, but if
HTC keeps refusing to play well with others then Android will never get the
full amount of OSS developer buy-in that is possible.

-Chris


On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 21:50, Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think your email comes off as pretty angry. HTC has been slow to put up a
> mirror, but you haven't looking into letter of the license documentation
> compliance (which if you visit about -> legal in the phone menu should be
> there) I also think that maybe they need to learn how to be faster about
> this kind of thing, but to assume this comes from a malicious intent seems
> misguided and only serves to drive people away from using gpl'd components
> in their software.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100111/e79eb5ed/attachment-0001.htm 

From luca at ventoso.org  Tue Jan 12 16:19:27 2010
From: luca at ventoso.org (Luca Olivetti)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:19:27 +0100
Subject: LG violates gpl? take 2
In-Reply-To: <FEDE608A-7558-4B69-8BB0-FCA8939F21F3@lge.com>
References: <4B4389C1.2040408@ventoso.org>	<C662FC65-BF21-496F-9FA3-B4A1617DEB45@lge.com>
	<4B448076.2080208@ventoso.org> <4B478713.20806@ventoso.org>
	<FEDE608A-7558-4B69-8BB0-FCA8939F21F3@lge.com>
Message-ID: <4B4C92FF.2080001@ventoso.org>

En/na Kyoungae Kim ha escrit:
> Hi, Luca Olivetti. 
> 
> I'm not sure this mail will be accepted by the mailing list system since 
> my mail has been rejected before. 

Could the mailing list administrators take a look at this, please?

I'm quoting the whole message without trimming.

> 
> On Jan 9, 2010, at 4:27 AM, Luca Olivetti wrote:
> 
>> En/na Luca Olivetti ha escrit:
>>
>>>> You requested the source code to opensource at lge dot com as I 
>>>> know. You can receive the way to access our system and download the 
>>>> source code.
>>> Yes, I received your message and replied with the requested data, but 
>>> I wonder why you don't simply put the sources on a publicly 
>>> accessible ftp/web server, like many other manufacturers are doing: 
>>> since anybody is entitled to redistribute the sources anyways, 
>>> keeping them under wraps can only generate the kind of problems I had.
>> Ok, I downloaded the sources and the toolchain, but I still think 
>> there are some problems:
>>
>> 1) the driver for bluetooth_lge is provided only in binary form 
>> (bt_usb.lgko). Since it's linked in the kernel I think it should be 
>> provided in source form.
> 
> I'm sorry for omission of the mentioned driver from provided sources.
> I am trying to contact to engineering part. I will inform you as soon as 
> possible. 

Ok, thank you

> 
>> 2) The kernel builds[*] but I cannot produce a kernel image 
>> corresponding to the image running in my tv: the image in the firmware 
>> is 2176399 bytes and the uImage resulting from the compilation is 
>> 2166241. Either this is a different kernel, a different 
>> configuration[**] or a different set of tools.
> 
> To compare image size, I should know exact full model name and main 
> version of your TV.
> For example, 50PS8000 model has some sub-models like 50PS8000-ZA, 
> 50PS8000-US, and so on. 
> There is a procedure to find out the main version. 
> In case of 50PS8000-ZA, follow the instruction. (Menu -> Setup -> 
> Diagnostics) 

I'll take a look as soon as I go home. Now I can only say that it's an 
european model for Spain, firmware version 3.20.

> 
>> [*] apart from various warnings, there are many 
>> "CONFIG_MSTAR_TITANIA_BD_something not defined" messages regardless of 
>> the configuration used.
> 
> That warning can be seen in our compilation environment. 
> You may ignore that warning because it does not affect building kernel 
> image.
> 
>> [**] I tried all the supplied configurations, though I think that, 
>> being my set a plasma tv, the correct one should be config-flash-pdp
> 
> Please use the mk-pdp.sh script instead of mk-s6-atsc for compilation, 
> and you can build right image with proper configuration for PDP TV set.

I already did the building steps in mk-pdp.sh, which uses 
config-flash-pdp and config-normal-pdp.
In fact, as I said, I tried all the configurations supplied.

> 
>> 3) No tool is provided to create an installable firmware image. I know 
>> that the firmware contains non-gpl parts, but those can be provided in 
>> binary form.
> 
> Sorry but I do not understand what kind of tool. 
> You already built kernel image, uImage. And uImage is executable image 
> that can be executed on TV. 

Yes, but how do I install it on the TV?
The tv only accepts an epk file as a firmware upgrade and there's no 
tool to prepare an epk file.

Regards.
-- 
Luca



From cdibona at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 19:33:12 2010
From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:33:12 -0800
Subject: Linux kernel on HTC Hero Android phone (CDMA/US-Spec)
In-Reply-To: <b5eede951001112055x6b301398uac3751bc5a93776d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b5eede951001050734h71c3ba24l6b02dbca9384a1d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001080755p6fa8be62wc0d6b2641e34906a@mail.gmail.com>
	<606e87f01001110531v4aa5f8f5vc1238273585d9530@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001110650j5b30fa65j387ca049d821a8ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001111709p74947b89y9852d628d199eec7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7d9492d91001111950ge08a1f6ue69aef33c4361942@mail.gmail.com>
	<b5eede951001112055x6b301398uac3751bc5a93776d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d9492d91001121033s4a79504ch9c5dab423a9f260@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Chris McCracken
<chrismc at ozarkmountain.net>wrote:

> <rant>
> I *am* a bit angry. HTC has been refusing to provide the CDMA Hero kernel
> source to not just myself, but a whole community of developers since they
> first started delivering the phone Oct 9th, 2009. They have refused to
> acknowledge that there is any difference between the source used to build
> the GSM Hero and that used for the CDMA Hero (which has been proven false).
> I started this process to generate a full paper trail of their refusal to
> provide the source after seeing developers be shot down by HTC time after
> time (unfortunately without a lot of documentation of their transactions).
>
> If this were an isolated occurrence, it could easily be written off as an
> oversight.  However, HTC has built a history of being far less than
> forthcoming with GPL requests. I have used the exact procedure they specify
> for GPL requests, and I am not seeing anyone there take the least bit of
> responsibility for handling my inquiry. In fact, they seem to be going out
> of their way to avoid taking responsibility or for having any personal
> accountability whatsoever. If HTC has *any* valid legal or technical reason
> for NOT distributing the full CDMA kernel source, they have not publicly
> shared it.
> </rant>
>
>
I get that, I do, believe me. I might be in a position of having outrage
fatigue. I remember explaining compliance to companies in the late 90s and I
cannot sometimes believe I'm still having to do it.

Chris D,
> I read all four entries under the "Legal->About" reader (HTC legal, Sprint
> legal, Open source licenses, and Google legal), actually before you had
> suggested it the first time. I have since reread it after both times you
> suggested I do so. I'm trying to read between the lines that I might be
> missing something there, but I'm not getting it.  The most relevant
> information I can find is in the "HTC legal" document:
>
>
Oh, okay. Sorry for assuming you had not.


> "Until the date that is three years after you acquired the Software, you
>> may obtain a copy of the source code corresponding to the binaries for
>> GPL-licensed file by sending a request to HTC customer service at
>> www.htc.com, and HTC will send you a link to such source code."
>>
>
> Typos are theirs, not mine. I followed that procedure to the letter. I used
> the online customer service system on www.htc.com, and very specifically
> outlined exactly what GPL source code I was requesting (Linux kernel only,
> for CDMA Hero as distributed by Sprint).
>
> I don't believe that HTC has malicious intent.  However, I do believe that
> HTC is not taking their GPL obligation seriously. Buying-in to OSS has many
> great benefits for commercial organizations. However, it also requires due
> diligence and honoring the requests of those that have developed the
> software. HTC's record of behavior in honoring GPL requests is doing nothing
> at this point besides alienating OSS developers.  That is bad for Linux, bad
> for Android, bad for HTC, and by association bad for Google. I want the
> Android platform to grow just as much as everyone at HTC and Google, but if
> HTC keeps refusing to play well with others then Android will never get the
> full amount of OSS developer buy-in that is possible.
>

So I'm with you up to a point, but blaming android/google for users of
android not complying is like blaming bruce perens or busybox  when
manufacturer of the week messes up compliance. At CES there were microwaves,
tablets, netbooks and phones all running android. I'll bet you some subset
will ship out of compliance with the licenses therein. It's not a black mark
on google that this happens, although some subset of open source enthusiasts
might equate, they are imo wrong to do so, and I think it will take 2 to 3
years before people learn to blame google for that which is googles and joe
random manufacturer that which is theirs.

But make no mistake, HTC should be doing better, for sure. I would be
interested in hearing from other folks on the list if this is a typical
amount of time for a manufacturer to come to terms with releasing or if it
is more time than normal.

Chris


> -Chris
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 21:50, Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think your email comes off as pretty angry. HTC has been slow to put up
>> a mirror, but you haven't looking into letter of the license documentation
>> compliance (which if you visit about -> legal in the phone menu should be
>> there) I also think that maybe they need to learn how to be faster about
>> this kind of thing, but to assume this comes from a malicious intent seems
>> misguided and only serves to drive people away from using gpl'd components
>> in their software.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100112/2cafd954/attachment.htm 

From luca at ventoso.org  Tue Jan 12 20:37:00 2010
From: luca at ventoso.org (Luca Olivetti)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:37:00 +0100
Subject: LG violates gpl? take 2
In-Reply-To: <4B4C92FF.2080001@ventoso.org>
References: <4B4389C1.2040408@ventoso.org>	<C662FC65-BF21-496F-9FA3-B4A1617DEB45@lge.com>	<4B448076.2080208@ventoso.org>
	<4B478713.20806@ventoso.org>	<FEDE608A-7558-4B69-8BB0-FCA8939F21F3@lge.com>
	<4B4C92FF.2080001@ventoso.org>
Message-ID: <4B4CCF5C.4030607@ventoso.org>

En/na Luca Olivetti ha escrit:

>> To compare image size, I should know exact full model name and main 
>> version of your TV.
>> For example, 50PS8000 model has some sub-models like 50PS8000-ZA, 
>> 50PS8000-US, and so on. There is a procedure to find out the main 
>> version. In case of 50PS8000-ZA, follow the instruction. (Menu -> 
>> Setup -> Diagnostics) 
> 
> I'll take a look as soon as I go home. Now I can only say that it's an 
> european model for Spain, firmware version 3.20.

That menu says V03.20.00

Bye
-- 
Luca


From nathan at nightsys.net  Thu Jan 14 03:30:51 2010
From: nathan at nightsys.net (Nathan Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:30:51 +1000
Subject: Clarification of License Terms - Asterisk
Message-ID: <88830b6c1001131830p1d8cc645w98bad2de943bc9be@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Guys,

Was just reading some stuff out of pure chance, and saw something that
sounds borderline contradictory, someone mind giving a second opinion? See
below:

http://www.asterisk.org/developers/bug-guidelines

The reason for the contributor license agreement has been discussed many
times, but the general gist is that your contribution must not introduce any
encumbrance to the Asterisk code base, but Digium DOES NOT OWN your
contribution, *and they cannot take released Asterisk out of GPL.* Relax;
it's a very fair and reasonable license, and does not remove your rights or
threaten the open source nature of the project. See the mailing list
archives for long explanations of why everyone who contributes agrees that
it's a fair and sane thing to do. You only need to sign the contributor
license agreement once; it applies to all stuff that you send in via the
issue tracker.

https://issues.asterisk.org/view_license_agreement.php

You hereby grant Digium a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable,
non-exclusive, and transferable license to use, reproduce, prepare
derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute the
Submissions, and to sublicense such rights to others. The rights granted may
be exercised in any form or format, and Digium may distribute and sublicense
to others on any licensing terms, including without limitation: (a) open
source licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL), or the Berkeley
Science Division license (BSD); or (b) binary, proprietary, or commercial
licenses. *If Your Submission is derived from software released by Digium
under the GPL, Digium as licensor thereof waives such requirements of the
GPL as applied to that software to the limited extent necessary to allow you
to provide the Submission and the foregoing license to Digium.*
*
*
Regards,

Nathan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100114/fc8cab1e/attachment.htm 

From serriaromeo at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 07:19:32 2010
From: serriaromeo at gmail.com (Shawn Robinson)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:19:32 -0600
Subject: Clarification of License Terms - Asterisk
In-Reply-To: <88830b6c1001131830p1d8cc645w98bad2de943bc9be@mail.gmail.com>
References: <88830b6c1001131830p1d8cc645w98bad2de943bc9be@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8a7726011001132219s4db23235x1d1d222d1b2b6242@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 20:30, Nathan Sullivan <nathan at nightsys.net> wrote:

> Hey Guys,
>
> Was just reading some stuff out of pure chance, and saw something that
> sounds borderline contradictory, someone mind giving a second opinion? See
> below:
>
> http://www.asterisk.org/developers/bug-guidelines
>
> The reason for the contributor license agreement has been discussed many
> times, but the general gist is that your contribution must not introduce any
> encumbrance to the Asterisk code base, but Digium DOES NOT OWN your
> contribution, *and they cannot take released Asterisk out of GPL.* Relax;
> it's a very fair and reasonable license, and does not remove your rights or
> threaten the open source nature of the project. See the mailing list
> archives for long explanations of why everyone who contributes agrees that
> it's a fair and sane thing to do. You only need to sign the contributor
> license agreement once; it applies to all stuff that you send in via the
> issue tracker.
>
> https://issues.asterisk.org/view_license_agreement.php
>
> You hereby grant Digium a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable,
> non-exclusive, and transferable license to use, reproduce, prepare
> derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute the
> Submissions, and to sublicense such rights to others. The rights granted may
> be exercised in any form or format, and Digium may distribute and sublicense
> to others on any licensing terms, including without limitation: (a) open
> source licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL), or the Berkeley
> Science Division license (BSD); or (b) binary, proprietary, or commercial
> licenses. *If Your Submission is derived from software released by Digium
> under the GPL, Digium as licensor thereof waives such requirements of the
> GPL as applied to that software to the limited extent necessary to allow you
> to provide the Submission and the foregoing license to Digium.*
> *
> *
> Regards,
>
> Nathan.
>

This section of that second license is just as bad if not worse imho.

You hereby grant Digium a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable,
non-exclusive, sublicenseable and transferable license under any patent You
own or control, now or in the future, to make, have made, use, sell, offer
for sale, or import Submissions or any modifications thereof, including
without limitation any combinations of the Submissions or modifications
thereof with software, technology or services of Digium or its affiliates.

Why should i have to grant them a license to my better mouse trap patent if
i'm offering a patch to them?
-- 
Life has been proven to have a 100% mortality rate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100114/bd851f33/attachment.htm 

From luca at ventoso.org  Thu Jan 14 12:26:22 2010
From: luca at ventoso.org (Luca Olivetti)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:26:22 +0100
Subject: LG violates gpl? take 2
In-Reply-To: <73D4AE4C-E1B4-4E60-B445-F104D137FD4B@lge.com>
References: <4B4389C1.2040408@ventoso.org>	<C662FC65-BF21-496F-9FA3-B4A1617DEB45@lge.com>
	<4B448076.2080208@ventoso.org> <4B478713.20806@ventoso.org>
	<FEDE608A-7558-4B69-8BB0-FCA8939F21F3@lge.com>
	<4B4C92FF.2080001@ventoso.org>
	<73D4AE4C-E1B4-4E60-B445-F104D137FD4B@lge.com>
Message-ID: <4B4EFF5E.30607@ventoso.org>

En/na Kyoungae Kim ha escrit:
> 
> We're ready to distribute the bluetooth driver source. 
> Maybe you can download tomorrow.

Great! Thank you

> The source code I gave you is the last version. 
> If you want to get the 3.20 version, we can do it. 

I'm fine with the latest released version as long as you can also 
provide an epk file to flash my tv with the same version ;-)
(hoping that the latest version fixes some bugs and improves the 
features of the tv :-D)

>> Yes, but how do I install it on the TV?
>> The tv only accepts an epk file as a firmware upgrade and there's no 
>> tool to prepare an epk file.
> 
> I'm trying to ask the relevant department. 
> Please understand that reply will be late because of my business trip. ( 
> ~ Jan. 24 ) 

I'm not in a hurry.

Thank you.

Bye
-- 
Luca Olivetti



From luca at ventoso.org  Thu Jan 14 15:11:51 2010
From: luca at ventoso.org (Luca Olivetti)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:11:51 +0100
Subject: LG violates gpl? take 2
In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a81001140550o5d1c35d6i60f1785c67309796@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B4389C1.2040408@ventoso.org>	
	<C662FC65-BF21-496F-9FA3-B4A1617DEB45@lge.com>	
	<4B448076.2080208@ventoso.org> <4B478713.20806@ventoso.org>	
	<FEDE608A-7558-4B69-8BB0-FCA8939F21F3@lge.com>	
	<4B4C92FF.2080001@ventoso.org>	
	<73D4AE4C-E1B4-4E60-B445-F104D137FD4B@lge.com>	
	<4B4EFF5E.30607@ventoso.org>
	<30dfe2a81001140550o5d1c35d6i60f1785c67309796@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B4F2627.3040805@ventoso.org>

En/na Thomas Charron ha escrit:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Luca Olivetti <luca at ventoso.org> wrote:
>>> The source code I gave you is the last version. If you want to get the
>>> 3.20 version, we can do it.
>> I'm fine with the latest released version as long as you can also provide an
>> epk file to flash my tv with the same version ;-)
>> (hoping that the latest version fixes some bugs and improves the features of
>> the tv :-D)
> 
>   LG runs eCos?
> 

This model uses Linux.

Bye
-- 
Luca


From twaffle at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 14:50:23 2010
From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:50:23 -0500
Subject: LG violates gpl? take 2
In-Reply-To: <4B4EFF5E.30607@ventoso.org>
References: <4B4389C1.2040408@ventoso.org>
	<C662FC65-BF21-496F-9FA3-B4A1617DEB45@lge.com>
	<4B448076.2080208@ventoso.org> <4B478713.20806@ventoso.org>
	<FEDE608A-7558-4B69-8BB0-FCA8939F21F3@lge.com>
	<4B4C92FF.2080001@ventoso.org>
	<73D4AE4C-E1B4-4E60-B445-F104D137FD4B@lge.com>
	<4B4EFF5E.30607@ventoso.org>
Message-ID: <30dfe2a81001140550o5d1c35d6i60f1785c67309796@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Luca Olivetti <luca at ventoso.org> wrote:
>> The source code I gave you is the last version. If you want to get the
>> 3.20 version, we can do it.
> I'm fine with the latest released version as long as you can also provide an
> epk file to flash my tv with the same version ;-)
> (hoping that the latest version fixes some bugs and improves the features of
> the tv :-D)

  LG runs eCos?

-- 
-- Thomas


From luca at ventoso.org  Mon Jan 25 20:03:58 2010
From: luca at ventoso.org (Luca Olivetti)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:03:58 +0100
Subject: LG violates gpl? take 2
In-Reply-To: <73D4AE4C-E1B4-4E60-B445-F104D137FD4B@lge.com>
References: <4B4389C1.2040408@ventoso.org>	<C662FC65-BF21-496F-9FA3-B4A1617DEB45@lge.com>
	<4B448076.2080208@ventoso.org> <4B478713.20806@ventoso.org>
	<FEDE608A-7558-4B69-8BB0-FCA8939F21F3@lge.com>
	<4B4C92FF.2080001@ventoso.org>
	<73D4AE4C-E1B4-4E60-B445-F104D137FD4B@lge.com>
Message-ID: <4B5DEB1E.8080008@ventoso.org>

En/na Kyoungae Kim ha escrit:

> The source code I gave you is the last version. 
> If you want to get the 3.20 version, we can do it. 
> 
>>>> 3) No tool is provided to create an installable firmware image. I 
>>>> know that the firmware contains non-gpl parts, but those can be 
>>>> provided in binary form.
>>> Sorry but I do not understand what kind of tool. You already built 
>>> kernel image, uImage. And uImage is executable image that can be 
>>> executed on TV.
>>
>> Yes, but how do I install it on the TV?
>> The tv only accepts an epk file as a firmware upgrade and there's no 
>> tool to prepare an epk file.
> 
> I'm trying to ask the relevant department. 
> Please understand that reply will be late because of my business trip. ( 
> ~ Jan. 24 ) 

Hello,

if you're back from your business trip, I'm still waiting for a solution 
  to these issues:

1) I need the sources corresponding to my kernel or a firmware update. 
Either way I need them to be in sync.

2) A way to build an image to upload to the tv

An additional item is that if RELEASE is statically linked to uClibc, 
according to the LGPL you should also provide an object that can be 
linked to uClibc.

In the end I should be able to build the same kernel as supplied on the 
tv and the same RELEASE by linking it to the provided uClibc.

Bye
-- 
Luca



From james at jameswilson.name  Thu Jan 28 22:29:16 2010
From: james at jameswilson.name (James Wilson)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:29:16 -0600
Subject: Veetle.com GPL Violation for x264 codec?
In-Reply-To: <d41291f21001180842j6bd529dan495f94a77b64c278@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d41291f21001180842j6bd529dan495f94a77b64c278@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d41291f21001281329x2e495e56h3f7c82a75bdea06f@mail.gmail.com>

Please review this case, I believe they may be in violation.
They have stopped responding to me and I have given them ample time to
respond appropriately.
I think they are inappropriately using the x264 codec as they have
closed source browser plugins on multiple platforms.
Warm wishes,

James Wilson - RIA (Rich Internet Application) Developer


Forwarded conversation
Subject: GPL Violation for x264 codec?
------------------------

From: James Wilson <James at jameswilson.name>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:40 PM
To: info at veetle.com


Hi, I have recently come across your website and very much enjoy it.

I have inspected your stream using wireshark and saw very distinctly
that you are using the Copyleft x264 codec.

Are you able to provide the source for your player plugins?

Regards,

James Wilson - Rich Internet Application Developer

----------
From: James Wilson <James at jameswilson.name>
Date: Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:50 AM
To: feedback at veetle.com


Please respond to my inquiry I made to the info at veetle.com address.
----------
From: James Wilson <James at jameswilson.name>
Date: Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 2:13 PM
To: feedback at veetle.com, info at veetle.com


Please respond to my inquiry below.
I really would prefer to keep this issue private and not have to
report it to GPL-Violations.org and elsewhere.

Unless I am mistaken, you are using unattributed open source code, and
not releasing your modifications.

http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html
----------
From: Bo Yang <byang at veetle.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:17 PM
To: James Wilson <james at jameswilson.name>


Hi James,

There's an open source component in our software (GPL). That component is
separate from other components and will remain open sourced. We can
certainly provide the corresponding source code. We have limited resource on
hand. Please allow 2-4 weeks for processing. We might set up a faster way
for folks to access the code eventually. For now we'll mail a copy to you.
Please provide us with your mailing address.

Bo

----------
From: James Wilson <James at jameswilson.name>
Date: Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:21 PM
To: Bo Yang <byang at veetle.com>


Thank you for your response Bo!
I really appreciate it!

[my home address: redacted]
As this source would be open, do you think there would be any problems
legally if I posted it on Veetle's behalf?

I would provide full attribution for Veetle's works being their own.

I wouldn't mind hosting it on my website.



----------
From: Bo Yang <byang at veetle.com>
Date: 2009/10/13
To: James Wilson <james at jameswilson.name>


Okay, got it.
No, you should have the freedom to post it. We'll probably have an official
site/page for public access in the near future. Updates and new releases
would be easier that way.
Yeah, compression is a factor.

Bo
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? Please respond to my inquiry I made to the
info at veetle.com
> address.
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? Regards,
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? James Wilson - Rich Internet Application Developer
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? From: James Wilson <James at jameswilson.name>
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:40 AM
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? Subject: GPL Violation for x264 codec?
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? To: info at veetle.com
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? Hi, I have recently come across your website and very
much
> enjoy it.
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? I have inspected your stream using wireshark and saw very
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? Are you able to provide the source for your player
plugins?
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? Regards,
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? > ? ? ? James Wilson - Rich Internet Application Developer
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? >
> ? ? ? >
>
>
>
>



----------
From: James Wilson <James at jameswilson.name>
Date: Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:12 PM
To: Bo Yang <byang at veetle.com>


I have yet to receive this.
Please give me an update.

Regards,

Dr. James Wilson - Rich Internet Application Developer


2009/10/13 Bo Yang <byang at veetle.com>

----------
From: James Wilson <James at jameswilson.name>
Date: Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 12:09 AM
To: Bo Yang <byang at veetle.com>, info at veetle.com, feedback at veetle.com,
bizdev at veetle.com


Hi. I have been very patient on not reporting this,

If I do not receive an answer with the promise of source by the 5th of
Jan, I will be reporting this to GPL-Violations, as well as any other
forum or mailing list that I can find.

When you agreed to use this software component, you agreed to the
license of it, which is not a public domain license. It requires you
to release the source of the component plus any modifications, on all
platforms.

Warm wishes,

James Wilson - RIA (Rich Internet Application) Developer


From armijn at uulug.nl  Sat Jan 30 00:17:30 2010
From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:17:30 +0100
Subject: Gpl violation
In-Reply-To: <930e19781001290959y325d4a12h9b093ae40897c847@mail.gmail.com>
References: <930e19781001290959y325d4a12h9b093ae40897c847@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1264807050.1960.2.camel@cletus.thuis>

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 18:59 +0100, Luca Mussio wrote:
> I'm contacting you to know if - at the URL
> http://www.mayking.com/prodotti/opensuite/overview - the Mayking
> company is making a GPL violation, 'cos there they're telling that the
> software they give is open source, but it's not possible to download
> the source from any link inside their site. Moreover they're telling
> that their software is a sort of Open Source Software collection.
> Is this a GPL violation?

Not necessarily. Depends on whether or not they are distributing it and
who the copryight holder is. If they are the copyright holders, they can
license it any way they want and not give you the source if they want
to. If they do distribute it and don't comply with the license (and
there are several ways to comply with a license, depending on which
license they distribute it under), then there might be a license
violation.

The copyright holders would then probably like to be informed.

armijn

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