Please see the following thread:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=2132&tstart=0x
Sorry I didn't get around to reporting this sooner, but at least the
guilty party has had plenty of time to fail to repent.
Regards,
Rob
On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:08, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> Please see the following thread:
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=2132&tstart=0x
>
> Sorry I didn't get around to reporting this sooner, but at least
> the guilty party has had plenty of time to fail to repent.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
This case looks about as black and white as it gets (although IANAL),
so I'm adding gpl-violations.org-legal to the CC list.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
Unix was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things,
because that would also stop them from doing clever things.
-- Doug Gwyn
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 13:01 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:08, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> > Please see the following thread:
> >
> > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=2132&tstart=0x
> >
> > Sorry I didn't get around to reporting this sooner, but at least
> > the guilty party has had plenty of time to fail to repent.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rob
>
> This case looks about as black and white as it gets (although IANAL),
> so I'm adding gpl-violations.org-legal to the CC list.
I'm not sure this is the case here or not, but it definitely brings up
an interesting question.
Since the dynamic loading of binary modules into Linux seems to be a
gray area, since if I give you a binary module that loads into Linux,
but except for the API found in the header files, the module contains no
GPL code. Is it bound to the GPL? This is a rhetorical question, please
don't answer it.
Now the real question: If one were to have an operating system, and set
up a layer that simulated the API of Linux, such that Linux binary
modules could be loaded, is _that_ a violation of the GPL? IOW, one
would only distribute to you a system that has no GPL code, and only
simulates an API, which is legal otherwise Samba wouldn't exist. But the
user has the option of compiling a Linux module to get the benefits from
it. Sort of a ndiswrapper in reverse!
-- Steve
Steven Rostedt wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 13:01 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>
>
>>On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:08, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Please see the following thread:
>>>
>>>http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=2132&tstart=0x
>>>
>>>Sorry I didn't get around to reporting this sooner, but at least
>>>the guilty party has had plenty of time to fail to repent.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Rob
>>>
>>>
>>This case looks about as black and white as it gets (although IANAL),
>>so I'm adding gpl-violations.org-legal to the CC list.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure this is the case here or not, but it definitely brings up
>an interesting question.
>
>Since the dynamic loading of binary modules into Linux seems to be a
>gray area, since if I give you a binary module that loads into Linux,
>but except for the API found in the header files, the module contains no
>GPL code. Is it bound to the GPL? This is a rhetorical question, please
>don't answer it.
>
>Now the real question: If one were to have an operating system, and set
>up a layer that simulated the API of Linux, such that Linux binary
>modules could be loaded, is _that_ a violation of the GPL?
>
No , it is not. It's called "reverse engineering".
Jeff
>IOW, one
>would only distribute to you a system that has no GPL code, and only
>simulates an API, which is legal otherwise Samba wouldn't exist. But the
>user has the option of compiling a Linux module to get the benefits from
>it. Sort of a ndiswrapper in reverse!
>
>-- Steve
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:12:01PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >Now the real question: If one were to have an operating system, and
> >set up a layer that simulated the API of Linux, such that Linux
> >binary modules could be loaded, is _that_ a violation of the GPL?
> No , it is not. It's called "reverse engineering".
That's entirely debatable and I would recommend the original poster
seek legal advice on this as there are many people who will claim
loading GPLd modules is paramount to linking and therefore this is a
violation.
El Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:56:38 -0800,
Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]> escribi?:
> That's entirely debatable and I would recommend the original poster
> seek legal advice on this as there are many people who will claim
> loading GPLd modules is paramount to linking and therefore this is a
> violation.
So, a GPL application running on top of a BSD-licensed kernel
(or library) is illegal? I doubt it...
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 04:15:22AM +0100, Diego Calleja wrote:
> So, a GPL application running on top of a BSD-licensed kernel
> (or library) is illegal? I doubt it...
applications don't link with the kernel, modules do
i don't know if that makes modules legal or not, but it's certainly
not clear cut
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 04:15:22AM +0100, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:56:38 -0800,
> Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]> escribi?:
>
> > That's entirely debatable and I would recommend the original poster
> > seek legal advice on this as there are many people who will claim
> > loading GPLd modules is paramount to linking and therefore this is a
> > violation.
>
> So, a GPL application running on top of a BSD-licensed kernel
> (or library) is illegal? I doubt it...
application != kernel module
And your example would anyways not be a problem since GPL + BSD = GPL
(assuming the 3 clause BSD licence).
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 04:15:22AM +0100, Diego Calleja wrote:
>
> > So, a GPL application running on top of a BSD-licensed kernel
> > (or library) is illegal? I doubt it...
>
> applications don't link with the kernel, modules do
>
> i don't know if that makes modules legal or not, but it's certainly
> not clear cut
>
The thing here is that the GPL discusses distributing. If I were to
receive a binary kernel, that happens to have implemented the same API as
Linux, is it a violation of the GPL. As long as it doesn't use any of the
same code and does a "clean room" kind of implementation of the API it is
perfectly legal.
So now if I have this binary kernel, and I myself compile a GPL module, I
don't see anything in the GPL that would prevent me from linking it in.
This is where it gets to be a problem with binary modules. They only
implement up to the API (granted, it shouldn't include code in the
headers), but it's the user that's linking and not the distributor. That
is where the gray area lies.
-- Steve
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 10:38:54PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> The thing here is that the GPL discusses distributing. If I were to
gnu.misc.discuss is ---> that-a-way
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> If I were to receive a binary kernel, that happens to have
> implemented the same API as Linux, is it a violation of the GPL. As
> long as it doesn't use any of the same code and does a "clean room"
> kind of implementation of the API it is perfectly legal.
Some would say it is not possible to make a "clean room"
implementation of the "Linux kernel API" for modules - especially
modules that need to use symbols marked as "GPLONLY" - because there
isn't a well-documented API, and to define the API you'd have to study
the kernel in such detail that you'd be making a derived work.
(Then again, the same applies to ("not") emulating Windows in WINE...).
There is a de facto understanding, in the form of an uneasy
compromise, that that binary modules which only use standard exported
symbols, not including GPLONLY symbols, are permitted, provided they
are distributed separately from the binary kernel, and loaded at run
time.
But not all kernel copyright holder subscribe to that: some are on
record saying they believe all distributed binary-only modules are
infringing. So in principle there is no guarantee that distributing
such a binary module is safe from legal consequences, but if you're
into taking business risks based on what most of the relevant people
recommend implicitly or explicitly, then distributing binary modules
which fit the above pattern is what I recommend. (This is not an
informed legal opinion, and I'm not a lawyer etc.)
Unlike modules, which can do all sorts of dirty things and it's not
really an API, the system call interface is well-documented and
well-defined (and easily emulated), and so using that doesn't imply
making a derived work. Furthermore, kernel authors have declared
(starting from Linus' preamble to the license) that there should be no
doubt about programs using only the system call interface, so esoteric
legal masturbation does not apply to this anyway.
This sort of thing has been analysed to death a thousand times on
gnu.misc.discuss, and on linux-kernel, in far more detail than will be
done here, so look there to continue the questioning or see where
these questions have lead before.
> So now if I have this binary kernel, and I myself compile a GPL module, I
> don't see anything in the GPL that would prevent me from linking it in.
The GPL does not apply any restrictions to anything about linking.
Only distribution.
> This is where it gets to be a problem with binary modules. They only
> implement up to the API (granted, it shouldn't include code in the
> headers), but it's the user that's linking and not the distributor. That
> is where the gray area lies.
It's been discussed to death a thousand times, with reference to other
GPL programs, not just Linux. Search for "user does the link" or similar.
And "indirect infringement".
-- Jamie
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:27:21 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 13:01 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:08, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> > > Please see the following thread:
> > >
> > > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=2132&tstart=0x
> > >
> > > Sorry I didn't get around to reporting this sooner, but at least
> > > the guilty party has had plenty of time to fail to repent.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > This case looks about as black and white as it gets (although IANAL),
> > so I'm adding gpl-violations.org-legal to the CC list.
>
> I'm not sure this is the case here or not, but it definitely brings up
> an interesting question.
It isn't the case here. (Tho' your question is interesting.)
The case here appears to be:
* Crossmeta offers "add-on" software as a free download from their web
site: <URL:http://www.crossmeta.com/downloads/crossmeta-add-1_0.zip>.
The zip file contains a text file gpl-license.txt, which says that the
add-ons are offered under the terms of the GPL.
* User downloads this GPLed software and asks the developer to provide
source code. Developer replies that the source code will be provided
only to paying customers:
<URL:http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=12277#12277>.
That's baad, m'kay?
--
Ben Slusky | As if you could kill time
[email protected] | without injuring eternity.
[email protected] | -Paula Baker
PGP keyID ADA44B3B
>Developer replies that the source code will be provided
>only to paying customers:
Not really. Developer does make the bizarre statement that "paid
customers" are entitled to source code, but doesn't say nobody else is.
And Developer says at the same time he will make source code available to
the person who requested it. The problem is that he doesn't actually do
it, and is never heard from again.
>>Developer replies that the source code will be provided
>>only to paying customers:
>
>
> Not really. Developer does make the bizarre statement that "paid
> customers" are entitled to source code, but doesn't say nobody else is.
> And Developer says at the same time he will make source code available to
> the person who requested it. The problem is that he doesn't actually do
> it, and is never heard from again.
Call me crazy but if one requests a copy of the source only to never
hear from the developer, is that not a direct violation of the GPL? To
me this sounds like the developer is walking a pretty fine line.
Cheers,
Scott
>>>Developer replies that the source code will be provided
>>>only to paying customers:
>>
>>
>> Not really. Developer does make the bizarre statement that "paid
>> customers" are entitled to source code, but doesn't say nobody else is.
>> And Developer says at the same time he will make source code available
to
>> the person who requested it. The problem is that he doesn't actually
do
>> it, and is never heard from again.
>
>Call me crazy but if one requests a copy of the source only to never
>hear from the developer, is that not a direct violation of the GPL? To
>me this sounds like the developer is walking a pretty fine line.
I'll just call you crazy for implying that someone said otherwise.
If you look above, you'll see a statement that the developer said he would
supply source code only to paying customers, and then a contradiction that
says the developer did not say that. It then adds an extra fact to
explain what the developer _really_ did to create the violation.
Scott Mansfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Developer replies that the source code will be provided
> >>only to paying customers:
> > Not really. Developer does make the bizarre statement that "paid
> > customers" are entitled to source code,
Read the GPL: You get the binary, you are entitled to the source. You have
no binary, wellll...
Sure, you can get the binary (legally!) from somebody else, and then you
are entitled to source.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
Horst von Brand wrote:
> Scott Mansfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Developer replies that the source code will be provided
>>>>only to paying customers:
>
>
>>>Not really. Developer does make the bizarre statement that "paid
>>>customers" are entitled to source code,
>
>
> Read the GPL: You get the binary, you are entitled to the source. You have
> no binary, wellll...
>
> Sure, you can get the binary (legally!) from somebody else, and then you
> are entitled to source.
But the obligation to provide you with the source is on the person who
gave you the binary not the person who sold him the binary.
--
Peter Williams [email protected]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Horst von Brand wrote:
> > >>Developer replies that the source code will be provided
> > >>only to paying customers:
>
> > > Not really. Developer does make the bizarre statement that "paid
> > > customers" are entitled to source code,
>
> Read the GPL: You get the binary, you are entitled to the source. You have
> no binary, wellll...
>
> Sure, you can get the binary (legally!) from somebody else, and then you
> are entitled to source.
If in the last paragraph mean "then you are entitled to the source
[from Developer]", then that is not correct.
You are entitled to the source from the person who gave you the
binary. You are also only entitled to it in ways enumerated by the
GPL - i.e. at the same time as you receive the binary, or if the
person giving the binary does not provide the source at the same time,
in the form of a 3 year written offer to provide it later from that
person.
If you receive a binary from an intermediate 3rd party, you have no
entitlement to get the source from _their_ supplier. Only from the
3rd party.
If the 3rd party don't supply you with source, even if _they_ can't
because they don't have it, then _they_ are in breach of the GPL when
they give you the binary.
Of course, the upstream Developer could give you the source anyway.
But they aren't required to do that, if they aren't providing the binary.
All that said, isn't this thread a result of the upstream Developer
(i.e. not a 3rd party) providing binaries for free, and then not
providing source to the people who get those free binaries, despite
saying they will? That is not on.
-- Jamie
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 10:35:41AM -0500, Ben Slusky wrote:
> It isn't the case here. (Tho' your question is interesting.)
>
> The case here appears to be:
>
> * Crossmeta offers "add-on" software as a free download from their web
> site: <URL:http://www.crossmeta.com/downloads/crossmeta-add-1_0.zip>.
> The zip file contains a text file gpl-license.txt, which says that the
> add-ons are offered under the terms of the GPL.
>
> * User downloads this GPLed software and asks the developer to provide
> source code. Developer replies that the source code will be provided
> only to paying customers:
> <URL:http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=12277#12277>.
>
> That's baad, m'kay?
This is definitely not acceptable. A written offer must be valid to ANY
3RD PARTY.
So it wouldn't even be enough to offer the source code to paying
customers and those who downloaded the binary code, but actually it must
be made available to anyone who asks for it.
--
- Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Harald Welte wrote:
> > The case here appears to be:
> >
> > * Crossmeta offers "add-on" software as a free download from their web
> > site: <URL:http://www.crossmeta.com/downloads/crossmeta-add-1_0.zip>.
> > The zip file contains a text file gpl-license.txt, which says that the
> > add-ons are offered under the terms of the GPL.
> >
> > * User downloads this GPLed software and asks the developer to provide
> > source code. Developer replies that the source code will be provided
> > only to paying customers:
> > <URL:http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=12277#12277>.
> >
> > That's baad, m'kay?
>
> This is definitely not acceptable. A written offer must be valid to ANY
> 3RD PARTY.
>
> So it wouldn't even be enough to offer the source code to paying
> customers and those who downloaded the binary code, but actually it must
> be made available to anyone who asks for it.
Ah, that depends on whether they provided the source code for download
to paying customers at the time those customers downloaded the binary.
GPL section 3:
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
What this means is that if you make the source code available
alongside the binary, e.g. on a web site under the same conditions of
access, you don't need to provide the written offer to all 3rd
parties; indeed, you don't need to provide the written offer at all.
The above description of what Crossmeta did doesn't clearly say if
Crossmeta provided their customers with the binary and an offer to get
source on request (the written offer), or if those paying customers
were able to download the source at the same time as the binaries.
-- Jamie
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 11:54:22AM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Harald Welte wrote:
> > > The case here appears to be:
> > >
> > > * Crossmeta offers "add-on" software as a free download from their web
> > > site: <URL:http://www.crossmeta.com/downloads/crossmeta-add-1_0.zip>.
> > > The zip file contains a text file gpl-license.txt, which says that the
> > > add-ons are offered under the terms of the GPL.
> > >
> > > * User downloads this GPLed software and asks the developer to provide
> > > source code. Developer replies that the source code will be provided
> > > only to paying customers:
> > > <URL:http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=12277#12277>.
> > >
> > > That's baad, m'kay?
> >
> > This is definitely not acceptable. A written offer must be valid to ANY
> > 3RD PARTY.
> >
> > So it wouldn't even be enough to offer the source code to paying
> > customers and those who downloaded the binary code, but actually it must
> > be made available to anyone who asks for it.
>
> Ah, that depends on whether they provided the source code for download
> to paying customers at the time those customers downloaded the binary.
yes. but the point is (according to reports I have received) that the
object code (without source code) was available for download on the
crossmeta website.
Therefore anyone could have obtained a binary copy with no included
source code, and thus the 'any third party' clause implicitly comes into
effect.
As soon as you've even only once given a copy of the executable code
without at the same time including the full corresponding source code,
"any third party" is entitled to obtain a copy of the source code.
--
- Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 02:18:05PM +0100, Harald Welte wrote:
> yes. but the point is (according to reports I have received) that the
> object code (without source code) was available for download on the
> crossmeta website.
It's still downloadable.
http://www.crossmeta.com/downloads/crossmeta-add-1_0.zip
There is no source included, nor an offer to provide source, nor
anything which could be construed as to satisfy 3 (c).
Do you want to take this one on, Harald?
Harald Welte wrote:
> > Ah, that depends on whether they provided the source code for download
> > to paying customers at the time those customers downloaded the binary.
>
> yes. but the point is (according to reports I have received) that the
> object code (without source code) was available for download on the
> crossmeta website.
That sentence is not clear to me. Are you're saying that it was
possible to download the object code without source code, or that
_only_ the object code was available? The quoted GPL text means: the
distributor is allowed to offer the object code by itself, and the
source as a separate download from the same place at the same time.
> Therefore anyone could have obtained a binary copy with no included
> source code, and thus the 'any third party' clause implicitly comes into
> effect.
No. They must provide the 'written offer' to the person downloading
the binary, if they did not make available source code to that person.
If they did not provide the 'written offer', they are infringing the
copyright. A settlement might involve them having to provide that
offer to third parties; then again, it might not.
If they did provide the 'written offer', to the person downloading the
binary, then of course the 'third party' clause should be part of
that. It doesn't mean you can demand source, until you have a copy of
that offer.
> As soon as you've even only once given a copy of the executable code
> without at the same time including the full corresponding source code,
> "any third party" is entitled to obtain a copy of the source code.
I won't claim to be 100% sure, I'm not a lawyer, but that is not my
interpretation of clause 3, and I have it right in front of me.
My interpretation is this:
If they gave a copy of the executable and _made available_
the source code from the same place, with equivalent access,
they're in the clear. Even if the person downloading the
executable didn't download the source.
If they didn't make available the source, then they should have
accompany the executable with the written offer, to give any third
party the source (+ small charge, 3 years etc.)
Assuming they did provide the written offer (e.g. as a file with
the downloaded executable), then that by itself doesn't grant any
third party the right to demand the source.
To demand the source: a third party must get that written offer
from someone who received it. A person who downloaded the
executable could give it to them - indeed, they would _have_ to, if
that person gave the third party a copy of the executable without
source. (Clause 3c). Or, someone else who has received that offer
could pass it along. Someone might even be kind enough to pass
that offer to everyone - i.e. publish it.
So, if you are a third party, and you want to demand the source
code, first get hold of that written offer to provide the source
code from someone who downloaded the executable.
The reason why the written offer is passed around is because the
GPL is designed to ensure source code is available alongside
executables; not to force source code of private projects to be
made public.
You can easily show that the passing around like this of the
written offer is intended, if the GPL's clause 3b seems unclear:
Look at clause 3c. There would be no need for clause 3c if every
third party automatically got to demand source without having been
passed the written offer.
Of course, if crossmeta were offering the executable download to
everyone including non-paying customers (I don't know the whole
story), then of course all those people who downloaded it are entitled
to demand the source. None of those people are third parties, by the
way, but they're all entitled to get the source somehow.
And, again, I'm not a lawyer. FSF legals will presumably have a more
authoritative answer.
-- Jamie
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 02:16:07PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> That sentence is not clear to me. Are you're saying that it was
> possible to download the object code without source code, or that
> _only_ the object code was available?
Why don't you go and look instead of quibbling in the abstract?
The binary is *currently* available, and no source code is.
> No. They must provide the 'written offer' to the person downloading
> the binary, if they did not make available source code to that person.
Why are you bothering to nitpick Harald? Do you not realise he
understands the GPL better than you do, having agreed over 30 settlements
against people violating it? He's even got courts to grant injunctions!
> And, again, I'm not a lawyer. FSF legals will presumably have a more
> authoritative answer.
Yes. You're not a lawyer. Stop wasting everybody's time by trying to
interpret a legal document.
> Yes. You're not a lawyer. Stop wasting everybody's time by trying to
> interpret a legal document.
Matthew, thanks for your abuse. It was not necessary.
As a programmer, it is essential that I, like others, have a
reasonable understanding of the GPL. It is not written only for
lawyers. I did not nitpick something esoteric; I nitpicked something
which is important to real people who deal in GPL software which is
not available to the public.
> > That sentence is not clear to me. Are you're saying that it was
> > possible to download the object code without source code, or that
> > _only_ the object code was available?
>
> Why don't you go and look instead of quibbling in the abstract?
> The binary is *currently* available, and no source code is.
Because this thread kept using the past tense to say what crossmeta
_have_ done. As it's still available, why mention 'third parties'?
They're irrelevant; the violation is quite straightforward.
> > No. They must provide the 'written offer' to the person downloading
> > the binary, if they did not make available source code to that person.
>
> Why are you bothering to nitpick Harald?
Because he wrote something that, _without context_, is a technical
mistake that people sometimes make when talking about the GPL. Like
you, I consider it my duty to ensure the GPL is upheld, and in the
proper way. I appreciate now that Harald understands it well and his
statement was a simplification; others, may not. I've been writing
GPL software for 15 years; it's not a new thing to me.
Please understand that I didn't receive these messages through a
legal-experts list, where of course I would be far more cautious to
comment; I received them on a software development list.
> Do you not realise he understands the GPL better than you do, having
> agreed over 30 settlements against people violating it? He's even
> got courts to grant injunctions!
That's correct. I did not realise that. That's great! But I haven't
known Harald's name before; and also did not know this thread had
reached the point of someone actually handling the legal end.
-- Jamie (goodbye)
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:45:40AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 02:16:07PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > That sentence is not clear to me. Are you're saying that it was
> > possible to download the object code without source code, or that
> > _only_ the object code was available?
>
> Why don't you go and look instead of quibbling in the abstract?
> The binary is *currently* available, and no source code is.
Ok, the binary is still available, which was new to me. I was unable to
find it on their homepage.
> > And, again, I'm not a lawyer. FSF legals will presumably have a more
> > authoritative answer.
>
> Yes. You're not a lawyer. Stop wasting everybody's time by trying to
> interpret a legal document.
Mathew, Jamie, guys: Please calm down. No reason to get down to that
level.
--
- Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 06:46:41AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 02:18:05PM +0100, Harald Welte wrote:
> > yes. but the point is (according to reports I have received) that the
> > object code (without source code) was available for download on the
> > crossmeta website.
>
> It's still downloadable.
> http://www.crossmeta.com/downloads/crossmeta-add-1_0.zip
thanks for letting me know.
> There is no source included, nor an offer to provide source, nor
> anything which could be construed as to satisfy 3 (c).
>
> Do you want to take this one on, Harald?
I would be happier if someone based in the US (and more familiar with
the US legal system) could take up this one.
Maybe Hans Reiser is interested doing something about it, I've already
had gpl enforcement related contact with him in the past and he seemed
very interested.
I would recommend moving this thread off the technical mailinglists.
Everyone who wants to continue discussing the legal aspects is invited
to join the [email protected] mailinglist, see more info at
http://gpl-violations.org/mailinglists.html#ml-legal
Thanks.
--
- Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
On Wednesday 04 January 2006 08:46, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>http://www.crossmeta.com/downloads/crossmeta-add-1_0.zip
Not only that, but if the filename is removed from the above link, the
resultant is a blank screen & no error reported. This contributes to
my assumption that they have no intention of honoring the gpl.
Sic 'em.
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Well then. I guess everyone can hurl harsh language at them like a
school of guppies gumming
them to death or something. It's pointless to hurl around GPL violation
whining -- they dont care --
people here dont really care -- and unless someone has an attorney in
their pocket, it will go
absolutely nowhere.
J
Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Wednesday 04 January 2006 08:46, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.crossmeta.com/downloads/crossmeta-add-1_0.zip
>>
>>
>
>Not only that, but if the filename is removed from the above link, the
>resultant is a blank screen & no error reported. This contributes to
>my assumption that they have no intention of honoring the gpl.
>
>Sic 'em.
>
>
>
>Why don't you go and look instead of quibbling in the abstract?
I'm in favor of asking for clarification on the mailing list instead of
going and looking. It's more efficient for one person to do the research
and then disseminate the information on a mailing list instead of everyone
going and looking.
>Why are you bothering to nitpick Harald?
I'm in favor of the nitpick. Little ambiguities and errors can cause big
misunderstandings that snowball; I have more trouble with people who fail
to recognize they've inferred something that wasn't said than with people
who refuse to infer.
>Do you not realise he understands the GPL better than you do
As a scientist, I give no one a free ride with, "It's true because I said
it and I should know." Being an expert only means you're better able to
prove you're right.
--
Bryan Henderson IBM Almaden Research Center
San Jose CA Filesystems