Third post, but, i downloaded their source code, and
it seems the original copyright notices are there, so
they are not violating the GNU licence.
Best regards,
Lucio Diaz.
______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!
Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Violations of the GPL, LGPL, and GFDL
"how the license was violated:
Is the copyright notice of the copyright holder
included?"
Best regards,
Lucio Diaz.
______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!
Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es
Regardless of its legality, removing copyright notes
from the sources, thus refusing the right of the
authors, is RUDE. There would have been no problem, i
am quite sure, if they have just forked reactos and
left copyright notices (adding their names to the
contributing if they add to source in the files). For
example, we did not remove the wine copyright notices.
Still i believe many judges would consider this a
copyright infringment, why? Cause the license says:
"We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright
the software, and (2) offer you this license which
gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or
modify the software."
The licence gives you permision to modify the software
(thus the source code), but says nothing about
granting the right to modify the copyright notices.
This is something to be said by an advocate of course.
My best sugestion would be to contact the FSF, explain
the situation, and ask them what to do.
Best regards,
Lucio Diaz.
______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!
Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:43:26PM +0200,
KJKHyperion wrote:
> Quandary wrote:
>
> > And that's my point exactly -- you'd need a lawyer
> > to interpret that, and ultimately it's the judge
> > who makes the final decision
>
> nope. In these matters, the copyright holder
> basically owns your ass. We can revoke all rights to
> anyone we please.
That depends on the jurisdiction, which is another
big whole mess. No one person owns the copyright,
here, and there are contributors in lots of
countries. So... which court would this even
be tried in? Whose laws apply?
We don't have a revokation clause in the license;
does this mean it's revokable? Non-revokable? Again,
you need a lawyer and *some* semblance of
jurisdiction before you can even begin to start
untangling this mess.
> Copyleft is just good manners, copyright is the
> law. Remember this already happened: a fork of
> OpenBSD was killed by license termination in
> response to copyright misrepresentation - and, boy,
> does it take a special brand of stupidity to manage
> to violate a BSD license
1) links, please.
2) Copyleft is law, too -- since it's based directly
on copyright. Some licenses leverage that legal
ability (GPL), some don't (BSD).
> That said, the Hostilix people have no shame and no
> fear; they are well-known copyright violators (their
> WinuxOS was a repackaged Windows 2000, wasting
> SourceForge's bandwidth too) and are doing their
> best to alienate us; they are a bunch of loser punk
> posers who embarass the whole OS-development scene.
> Let them get away with it, they are do-no-good hacks
> and nothing can punish them worse than simply
> existing. Hostilix will die naturally from the
> complete lack of any form of skill on the part of
> the pathetic clowns who conceived it
Agreed.
-- Travis
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Hello,
I was wondering if someone was interested in writing an open source version
of Mac OS X. I know about Darwin already so please don't comment about it.
I was thinking that Darwin could be a base for this project. I figure it
could start out like a 10.0 version with minimal application support to
allow Mac OS X binaries to run. Maybe on either PPC or x86 but even better
x86_64.
Tell me what you think.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 04:32:25PM -0500, Rick
Langschultz wrote:
> I understand the terms and conditions of all of the
> licenses about open source software, but this is out
> of left field. Please be a little more specific in
> the details why you have composed this email. Many
> of us don't use IRC, at least I don't. So please
> explain what is going on. That is just courtesy.
>
<snip>
Search the list for "HostiliX". The whole thing
started on the list with an unsolicited E-mail
from another project informing us that they were
essentially forking ReactOS. Much discussion about
the topic has followed those initial E-mails.
-- Travis
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:19:38PM +0200, Oliver
Schneider wrote:
>
> > Not true. The whole point of the BSD is that a
> > business can take your code, make a product, and
> > release that product with whatever (sub)license
> > they want. This happens all of the time, and is
> > the major "boon" of the BSD.
> Actually I cannot find this anywhere in the license.
> But I'll believe you ;)
Google for:
"incorporate BSD code" proprietary OR "closed source"
And skim.
> > This also means that BSD code could
> > (theoretically) become extinct in the "free" word;
> > e.g., if all versions of the code could be snapped
> > up by proprietary vendors, and all public mirrors
> > disappeared. This is one of the reasons people
> > choose GPL over BSD -- they want to ensure that
> > the source stays open and (additionally) that
> > changes get fed back to the community if the
> > binaries are distributed.
> That's exactly why I carefully choose my license
> beforehand. Some of my codes are GPL (currently 2
> projects). These are things where the efforts
> should not be used "commercially" (usually the GPL
> keeps away companies in the Wintel-world) by others.
Then you must understand -- when companies USE it
commercially, they are sublicensing your code under
their own EULA. They fulfill their obligation to you
(i.e., put in the notices), and then have free reign
to relicense the code as they see fit, so long as
they continue to fulfill your requirements.
> > Here is the text of the BSD license:
> I know it. But which part tells me someone can
> sublicense it?
Which part of the following statements says I can
plug in a toaster?
* You may use this electrical socket if you conform to
all of the following rules.
* You agree not to draw more than 20A of current.
* You agree to use proper external grounding on all
equipment that is plugged in.
The BSD license is exactly the same; very open-ended.
I could turn around and make a night-light with a
pass-trough plug in that stated:
* You may use this electrical socket if you conform to
all of the following rules.
* You agree not draw more than 2A
* You agree never to turn the light on
* You agree to turn over your first-born child to
Evil NiteLite inc.
And it wouldn't be breaing the rules of the first
statement at all.
> You know the problem here is the following:
> - No, I have no problem with projects using GPL to
> use my BSDLed code
> - Yes, I have a problem if my BSDLed code is
> published by them under the terms of the GPL.
> Because this means they can restrict the rights I
> have granted to the licensees. I think this is not
> possible like this!
Well, that's how BSD works everywhere. That's how
companys can sub-license it into their own code, and
that's how the GPL works with it, too.
An excerpt
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing>
Traditionally, Linux associated software is licensed
under the GPL, whilst BSD derivatives often use the
BSD license. Code licensed under the BSD license can
be relicensed under the GPL (the BSD license is said
to be "GPL-compatible") without securing the consent
of all original authors; but code under the GPL cannot
be relicensed under the BSD license without securing
the consent of all original authors, as the BSD
license does not necessarily require the source code
to be again freely available.
> If I understand the cited paragraphs of the GPL
> correctly it means that the code parts can be used
> but do not become GPLed. That's my view from reading
> it.
See GPL section 2.b:
You must cause any work that you distribute or
publish, that in whole or in part contains or is
derived from the Program or any part thereof,
*to be licensed as a whole
(at no charge to all third parties)
under the terms of this License.*
(emphasis mine)
The whole thing. Including your BSD code. ALL of it
has to be licensed as GPL to be distributed.
> > So yes, your BSD source code can be sub-licensed
> > by pretty much everybody, and it can also be
> > "converted" to GPL (i.e. it's "GPL-compatible').
> "GPL-compatible" is okay with me (that's OpenSource
> ;) ... "GPLed" - i.e. restricted by GPL - is not.
>
> > I'll take the opportunity to kill two birds with
> > one stone on this one.
> (-: We Germans kill two flies instead of birds :-P
Actually, that's a good idea ;)
> > Defaulting to saying it's inappropriate means that
> > we could implicitly terminate any of these
> > licenses even on suspicion (i.e., guilty until
> > proven innocent), and that just doesn't make
> > sense.
> That's an interesting view.
>
> > Von: Royce Mitchell III
> > Sounds to me the most prudent course of action
> > would be a new version of the GPL license which
> > clarifies this particular bit of confusion.
> This is being worked on currently (AFAIK). They want
> to make it much simpler so non-native speakers can
> understand it without a PhD from a law school ;)
Which will be really hard, since the GPL is one of
the clearest mid-sized licenses I've ever read.
It crams a lot of complexity into very easy-to-
understand, clear, specific terms. The "appropriate"
ambiguity is a very unfortunate oversight :/.
-- Travis
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I'll take the opportunity to kill two birds with one
stone on this one.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 08:25:49PM +0200, Oliver
Schneider wrote:
> > Quandary wrote:
> >
> > > 2.c says that an *appropriate* copyright notice
> > > must be displayed. It does not define what
> > > appropriate means. It does *not* say, anywhere,
> > > that the copyright notice cannot be modified.
> >
> > we as the copyright holders decide what's
> > appropriate
See below...
>
> Not only this. I believe that the meaning of this
> paragraph *implies* that the copyright information
> cannot be removed or replaced by anyone except the
> copyright holder(s). And if you come and add some
> code that you can add you copyright *without*
> removing other's copyright(s). But I am not a lawyer
> :o)
>
And that's my point exactly -- you'd need a lawyer to
interpret that, and ultimately it's the judge who
makes the final decision as to what the "real"
interpretation or meaning is (at least it's that way
in the US). The more legal precidence and explicit
laws you can find to support an interpretation, the
better chance you can convince a judge to take your
point of view. Really, the lawyers job is to give you
a best guess as to what he thinks he can convince that
judge of -- but I for one lack the experience required
to make such a guesstimate ;).
In any case, the basic premise still holds: until we
can *prove* (or have a high chance of convincing a
juge) that the copyright change isn't appropriate, it
should be considered appropriate by default.
Defaulting to saying it's inappropriate means that we
could implicitly terminate any of these licenses even
on suspicion (i.e., guilty until proven innocent), and
that just doesn't make sense.
-- Travis
Always err on the side of caution
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 07:48:44PM +0200, Oliver
Schneider wrote:
> > Not quite, no. The GPL says that if you use GPL
> > code, everything that you release that uses that
> > GPL code must also be GPL. Thus (BSD + LGPL + GPL)
> > -> GPL when it's distributed. BSD must be
> > sublicensed, and LGPL must have it's GPL license
> > conversion excercised. You no longer have the full
> > BSD rights in the distributed code anymore, if you
> > download it all as a whole.
> Perhaps I've misunderstood something, but I for
> instance publish my sources under BSDL (and other
> liberal licenses) because it is not as viral as the
> GPL. Therefore I would surely not agree that someone
> is allowed to "sublicense" code which I
> intentionally published under BSDL to give the
> licensee as much freedom as possible. Actually,
> since the GPL is too restrictive (i.e. "viral") it
> violates rights the author granted to the users of
> his BSDLed code.
Not true. The whole point of the BSD is that a
business can take your code, make a product, and
release that product with whatever (sub)license they
want. This happens all of the time, and is the major
"boon" of the BSD.
This also means that BSD code could (theoretically)
become extinct in the "free" word; e.g., if all
versions of the code could be snapped up by
proprietary vendors, and all public mirrors
disappeared. This is one of the reasons people
choose GPL over BSD -- they want to ensure that the
source stays open and (additionally) that changes get
fed back to the community if the binaries are
distributed.
>
> Can you enlighten me what makes you think that
> BSDLed code can be "sublicensed", please!
>
Here is the text of the BSD license:
Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms,
with or without modification, are permitted provided
that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the
above copyright notice, this list of conditions
and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce
the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided
with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the
names of its contributors may be used to endorse
or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.
Note GPL clauses 6 and 7:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work
based on the Program), the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensor to copy,
distribute or modify the Program subject to these
terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing
compliance by third parties to this License.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or
allegation of patent infringement or for any other
reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are
imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this
License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of
this License. If you cannot distribute so as to
satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a
consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
Note that the only case where both the obligations of
the GPL and BSD licenses can be met is if the BSD
source files have the BSD header (as required) AND an
overriding GPL notice (which is not disallowed by the
BSD license). In this manner, both licenses are
conformed to, and the only serious potential for
conflict is the "advertisement clause" (having to
put explicit things in the documentation). Because the
source code of the file must be made available
(according to the GPL) the second clause of the BSD
license is fulfilled, since the notice is part of
the "materials provided with the distribution" (even
if not immediately).
So yes, your BSD source code can be sub-licensed by
pretty much everybody, and it can also be "converted"
to GPL (i.e. it's "GPL-compatible').
-- Travis
IANAL. Talk to one if you have need for true legal
counsil. Please don't break my legs, anyone ;).
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
