OSNews

If they made no changes to Wine source, then Parallels should have no problem publishing the source code they used, since Wine is already public.

If Parallels did make some changes to the Wine source, it shouldn't be too onerous to release the changes they made to Wine source code. It can't be too many.

Under no circumstance do Parallels have to release all their source code ... just the Wine stuff which was under the LGPL is affected here.

Since Parallels is closed source then most likely this will need to be handled through the court system to have an independent review of each projects code. Even though I'm a supporter of the Linux movement I can see the reasoning why a closed source developer would be cautious showing an open source developer their code.

The code to Parallels itself is closed, and it belongs to Apple, and that code is not the subject of this discussion.

Parallels has linked in some code from the Wine project. It is that Wine code that is under discussion. That code is LGPL code, and as such, anyone redistibuting it is required to release the source code, along with any changes made to the source code, FOR THE PARTS THAT ARE GPL CODE.

There is no question of a "closed source developer ... showing an open source developer their code". The Wine code at issue here is NOT Parallel's code.

Edited 2007-07-01 15:03

The code to Parallels itself is closed, and it belongs to Apple

Just to clarify, Parallels is owned by Parallels, Inc. (http://www.parallels.com/), not Apple. In fact, Parallels, Inc. sells two versions of its software: Parallels Worksation, for Linux and Windows; and Parallels Desktop, for Mac.

Parallels has stated that they use LGPL software and have modified it so what review is needed????

Edited 2007-07-01 15:24

Precisely. If Parallels have used LGPL software and have modified it and they are re-distributing it as part of Parallels, then the LGPL license requires them to provide the modified LGPL source code to whomever asks for it.

This requirement applies ONLY to the code which is licensed as LGPL, it does not apply to the rest of the Parallels code.

Here it is Monday, and it looks like public pressure did in a day, what a little bit of discussion couldn't do in nearly a month.

http://wiki.winehq.org/Parallels

Edited 2007-07-02 20:23

Why would it have been "great" if it was GPL'd?
Most likely if it had been GPL'd it would never have been used in the first place, and they would have re-implemented the code from scratch and made it closed source. And that way everybody would be worse off.

Even if they had linked against GPL code, they would not be forced to reveal their code. If they chose not to disclose their code, then they would lose the right to distribute the GPL code.

This would mean they would have to retire their product and rework it to add in the lost GPL functionality. As for the improper distribution already done, a court would have to define what compensations were due.

But in no case would they be forced by court to reveal their code.

"""
Any kind of license violation can be exstremly damaging to a company's reputation.
"""

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Go out on the street and tell 10 people that company A is thought to have committed a copyright violation and watch how outraged they become. ;-)

People, in general, don't care about copyright violations. They're too busy trying to find a copy of "The Lord of the Rings" with decent picture quality on Limewire to give it much thought.

>>People, in general, don't care about copyright violations.

While I generally agree with this statement, this case is not exactly a copyright violation. It could better be described as a "copyleft" violation. This, at least to people who know about it -which might not be any of those 10 you ask randomly on the street-, is quite worse since the owners or the copyright are already giving up most of their rights over the code, but the others not only don't say thanks but even take advantage and not respect the few rights their owners want to be respected.

I'm sure the situation will be easily solved, but it's an ugly one for the infringing company.

> While I generally agree with this statement, this
> case is not exactly a copyright violation. It could
> better be described as a "copyleft" violation.

As was already said many times, nobody in the public is every going to hear about this, let alone care. Only the courts will care, and for them, there is no copyleft. SWSoft did not behave as the Wine guys wanted, hence SWSoft was not given permission to copy the code. They did anyway, and thus infringed copyright.

Only the courts will care, and for them, there is no copyleft.

Wrong. "Copyleft" is just a way of describing GNU licences that's designed to be intuitive, the same way as one might describe The High Court of Australia as "the Australian supreme court". Whether the word "copyleft" has no basis in law is irrelevant, as the GPL has been repeatedly held up in court when challenged there.

Really? Held up in court?

Can you list citings? I would love to review those cases. My understanding is that it hasn't been tested in court -- at least not here in the US, which is what made the whole SCO fiasco such a problem.

The good news is, SCO fumbled their "case" so badly, that it still hasn't gotten to the issue of weather or not the GPL can hold up in court.

But if I'm wrong, I'd love to eat my words. So please, can you point to a case where the GPL was challenged, and held up?

At least in Germany. Article seems to be german only:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/49377

Edited 2007-07-02 15:31

Why wouldnt the GPL hold up in court? It uses the power of copyright and that has been proven in court time and time again. I see no reason some court would throw out the GPL based on.....what....

Can you explain why you think the courts would...what....invalidate the GPL? Laugh it out of a courtroom? What basis do you have for thinking a license on software would not hold up? Can you show many license that haven't held up in court?

Harold Welte has been succesful in regards to many violations of his code - I dont think that is a fluke or anything.

Edited 2007-07-02 15:42

Do you realize that if the GPL - or in this case the LGPL - didn't hold up in court, then Parrallels would *automatically* lose the right to redistribute the WINE libraries?

The GPL/LGPL is an *extension* of the rights normally provided by copyright law, not a *restriction*. So if (for some unlikely reason) it was struck down, the recipient of the software (Parrallels) would *lose* the extended rights that allow them to redistribute this copyrighted IP.

From Wikipedia:

"

"

"""
I'm sure the situation will be easily solved, but it's an ugly one for the infringing company.
"""

I agree that the fact that the code is FOSS makes the violator look worse than otherwise. But, as you say, those who know or care about the distinction are a minority.

So it depends upon how much weight our minority opinions carry.

As a constructive criticism to the community, I suggest that all the "hanging out with the choir" that we tend to do at sites like this sometimes gives us a distorted perception of how much weight our opinions actually carry in the greater world.

I suspect that this is just another day in the life of the PR department of Parallels, Inc; They don't seem to be in a huge hurry to comply, after all.

Still, it is important to address these violations.

The current hold up seems to be "waiting for legal department approval". I wonder how many days they waited for legal department approval to violate the license in the first place.

Edited 2007-07-01 14:29

Actually, no. It's LGPL, not GPL, so licensing isn't extended to linked applications. The only requirement is that source modifications to the LGPL code be released as a condition for re-distribution. At least from this aspect, it's much more cut and dried from a legal perspective, there's no debate or argument about derived code or linking. Without providing the source, they're simply distributing unlicensed software.

It seems that people are interpreting this as yet another GPL complaint about "all your code are belong to us", but that's not really the issue. If the story was about Parallels bundling Windows with their application without Microsoft's permission, people would probably better understand. This issue is no different, they're violating the same copyright laws, with the exception being that there is a very easy out from this particular license violation.

I totally agree. That is why I added the "'advanced' users" bit to the parent post.

On the other hand, I would not really be seeking the opinion of 10 people on the street when it comes to copyright violation issues, or even virtualisation software for that matter.

Still, rightly said that most people don't care about this sort of thing. It's mainly the damage caused by the fallout that is to be worried about, i.e. running the risk of looking incompetent from a business perspective as well as being vilified by a small but very vocal minority.

At the end of the day, Parallels is still playing mind share catch up with VMWare when it comes to recognized virtualization solutions, and not just in the enterprise. Any screw up, no matter how 'minor', has got to be a set back.

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Go out on the street and tell 10 people that company A is thought to have committed a copyright violation and watch how outraged they become. ;-)

I agree completely, and I'm a great example. I hate to be crass, but I really don't give a crap, as long as the product continues to work well.

Try explaining the merits of GPL and open source to people, and I'd say 90% look at you like a deer in headlights.

Not saying it's not important, just saying it's not important to most people.

I dunno, the LGPL is pretty easy to describe.

People put a lot of work into some code.
They're willing to allow a company to make a product based on their code and sell it without paying royalties.

The people only demand that the company using their code return any BUG FIXES or enhancements made to directly to their code in exchange.

I'd say this is pretty easy to understand and extremely good faith on the part of the folks who released their code under LGPL.

Shame on parallels, they really deserve to get their asses kicked for this one.

There is no argument here (as yet). Since the Wine code is released under the LGPL, then if Parallels have modified it and then distributed it, then Parallels must release the source code of the modifications to Wine that they made. That is the simple small cost of using GPL code ... you have to give back any changes you make to the code.

If it was Windows code that Parallels used, then we would have seen all kinds of lawyers and arguments. So far, all that has been asked of Parallels is to release the source code of Wine as it appears in Parallels, as required by the license for the Wine code.

If Parallels haven't changed the Wine code, then since it is already public there should be no problem for Parallels in releasing it, should there?

Perhaps a sense of proportion has gone astray here?

You're right. The WINE developers should let Parallels get away with it. Yeah, they chose the LGPL for a reason, but with everything going on in the world these days, this just seems so insignificant. The WINE people need to realize that 99% of the public has no idea what their software does or why they're upset. If there's no massive public outcry, why should there be justice?

We don't bring the same obsession to other areas of life, so why bring it to this?

Yeah, I know! The areas of life that most people are obsessed with are way more important than this. If Paris Hilton were violating the LGPL, that would be news.

Edited 2007-07-01 13:58

> The WINE people need to realize that 99% of the
> public has no idea what their software does or why
> they're upset. If there's no massive public outcry,
> why should there be justice?

Erm... maybe because we're talking about a legal dispute in a constitutional state, and not about anarchy? Sorry butters, but this gets my personal award for an extremely stupid statement among your otherwise bright comments.

Morin, welcome to the world of sarcasm.

Butters is right, of course.

Look, the WINE guys chose a license for their code, and if someone else wants to use this code, they ought to play by the rules set forth by that license. Personally, I'm not all that a fan of the (L)GPL and the FSF, but that is no excuse to disrespect it/them or the people who write the actual code.

Thom_Holwerda++

Thom_Holwerda++
or rather
++Thom_Holwerda

we don't want any copies

Well, it's a shame we can't mod up administrator comments.

Couldn't agree more. It's about respect not the chosen license.

I agree.

Too much focus on licensing than on actual user benefits.

Well if there was no license then people would be claiming it's their code right left and center without acknowledging the people who written it.

It's really not to much to ask is it, make the source available and mention the user who created it, that takes all of what, minutes?

Yes, but LGPL != Creative Commons. What you're describing is a creative commons licence - 'you can use this if you mention my name, thanks'. The LGPL is much more complex than that.

I don't see what's so complex about... "If you use our software and change it, make the changes available to everyone".

..seems pretty straight forward to me.

Alright. Lets focus on the user benefits. If Parallels complies to the licensing, wine will be able to implement their improvements into their project, thus improving the quality of wine's code for everyone. For the users of wine's benefit, we should focus on making sure that people improving their code do not violate their license, rather then allowing someone to take their code, create competition against them, and end up hurting the wine users. This doesn't hurt parallels at all, just wine.

"""
I agree.

Too much focus on licensing than on actual user benefits.
"""

I started to get into a lengthy exchange with someone last week about licensing and FSF philosophy. But time ran out and I had to devote all of my time to a report generator that I am working on in order to avoid one of my customers getting themselves into a Windows dependency by deploying Crystal Reports.

It's taken me all week (and longer than I expected) but it's now ready, and hopefully will head off The Crystal "solution". I probably won't be able to charge anything for my work in order to keep Crystal out, but that's OK. Being web based (using Python, Django, and Postgresql, btw) it has some advantages for their multi site business.

But I got to thinking... hour for hour spent, where was I doing the most good for FOSS? Bickering over licensing philosophies on OSNews? Or out in the trenches doing my best to make the Linux based solution competitive with the Windows solution for my customers?

I suppose that if one is not in a position to directly promote FOSS to users, license discussion is a way to contribute. But the main benefit there is to give authors of code access to alternative viewpoints on the strengths and weaknesses of various licenses they might choose for their code. And god knows that there is *already* more than enough of that easily obtainable via Google search.

So if you really care about FOSS and are about to get into a spat over licensing philosophies with someone on an internet site... you might think about how your time might be more effectively spent in furthering your ideals.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll get back to putting the finishing touches on my report generator, in preparation for presenting it tomorrow. :-)

Edited 2007-07-01 21:17

Don't re-invent the wheel, jasperreports has been around for years:
http://jasperforge.org/sf/projects/jasperreports

Thanks. :-)

Unfortunately this has to talk to a crappy C/ISAM -> SQL gateway called U/SQL for which no Unix or Linux driver is provided. Just a Windows ODBC driver. All that is supplied for Linux is an incredibly limited command line client, intended to be used interactively in a terminal, that I had to get clever with to simulate a real database connection.

(I run an instance of it with "pexpect" in a separate thread which listens for queries, feeds them to the command line client, and returns the result as a list of dictionaries.)

There is, I hear tell, a java JDBC driver available, but attempts to find out more about how to get it have come to nothing... and it probably costs more than Crystal.

And besides, I needed a Django "learning project". ;-)

pexpect = heavenly...

tcl/expect sucks because it is tcl with send and expect.
perl-expect SUCKS because perl doesn't support exception handling.

python + expect = pexpect = awesome. It is something every Sysadmin should play with a time or two.

One of the biggest obstacles in open source is this obsession with licenses, lawyers and arguments over some kind of true religious way. We don't bring the same obsession to other areas of life, so why bring it to this? Every time you think of lawyers you are wasting energy that could be spend on a host of more pleasurable activities.

That was the best post I have read on OSNews in a very long time and mainly I just want to offer that compliment.

To apply an old cliche to the release of code, you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Some people choose to focus on the positives in life, like writing better software. Others prefer to get whipped into a moral froth because the damned horse just doesn't share their priorities.

Some people choose to focus on the positives in life, like writing better software. Others prefer to get whipped into a moral froth because the damned horse just doesn't share their priorities.

Which you could equally well restate as:

"Some people choose to get annoyed at wrongs and attempt to right them; others couldn't give a 'colourful metaphor'."

...with equal justification.

Some people choose to focus on the positives in life, like writing better software. Others prefer to get whipped into a moral froth because the damned horse just doesn't share their priorities.

Which you could equally well restate as:

"Some people choose to get annoyed at wrongs and attempt to right them; others couldn't give a 'colourful metaphor'."

...with equal justification.

I almost agree, except: beating one's wife is wrong. I do not believe that there is a moral aspect to software. Extending morality to software is a leisure activity, just like playing golf. I like golf, but I don't pretend that it is productive.

Actually, there's a moral aspect to everything. Playing golf with your head would be wrong, for example.

Software not productive? You better tell that to companies that employ teleworkers.

Actually, there's a moral aspect to everything. Playing golf with your head would be wrong, for example.

Software not productive? You better tell that to companies that employ teleworkers.

Don't want to be a jerk here...but oh well. Learn to read. I wrote:

Extending morality to software is a leisure activity, just like playing golf. I like golf, but I don't pretend that it is productive.

I see nothing there about software not being productive. The subject of is is a gerund, extending. I compared golf to that gerund. So extending...is [not] productive.

Anyway, playing golf with your head is not necessarily wrong, it is just dumb. Is there really a moral aspect to everything, including line integrals and oranges? I don't think so. Maybe you could argue that there is a moral aspect to all human actions, from the perspective of use of time: "Is golfing or writing software wrong because I could be helping starving children instead?". I don't know. I think one answer is that morality is not the essence of many human actions.

I think he meant playing golf with *your* head...and I hope you'd agree this would be morally wrong.

The point is that, by refusing to comply with the LGPL *and* continue to distribute the code, Parralels is in fact engaged in copyright violation. If you believe in copyright, and that it is necessary to respect the wishes of authors, then that is in fact immoral.

What cracks me up is those people who say that there's so much more to life than argue about license...and yet by making that statement, they are in fact arguing about licenses. While one could indeed argue that it's a waste of time to write a post expressing one's opinion about the alleged copyright violation by Parallels, one would also have to admit that writing a post making that argument would *also* be a waste of time...(same would go for this post, too - except if you don't agree with the original premise).

I think he meant playing golf with *your* head...and I hope you'd agree this would be morally wrong.

The point is that, by refusing to comply with the LGPL *and* continue to distribute the code, Parralels is in fact engaged in copyright violation. If you believe in copyright, and that it is necessary to respect the wishes of authors, then that is in fact immoral.

What cracks me up is those people who say that there's so much more to life than argue about license...and yet by making that statement, they are in fact arguing about licenses. While one could indeed argue that it's a waste of time to write a post expressing one's opinion about the alleged copyright violation by Parallels, one would also have to admit that writing a post making that argument would *also* be a waste of time...(same would go for this post, too - except if you don't agree with the original premise).

My argument is that the license police should do something more productive, like coding instead of threatening lawsuits. Posting on a message board is a waste of time almost by definition and I thought we all agreed on that already Like golf, it is a leisure activity.

Anyway, you make a point: I don't really believe in copyright in this context. I think that if you don't want to make money off of something, you should put it in the public domain.

That was the best post I have read on OSNews in a very long time and mainly I just want to offer that compliment.

Thanks. I'd like to think that's why the little dweebs and fruitcakes on here have marked it down to zero (it's gone from 5 to 0 in the past few hours).

One of the biggest obstacles in open source is this obsession with licenses, lawyers and arguments over some kind of true religious way.

You think this sort of thing doesn't happen with proprietary licences? Of course it does. I suspect all the big proprietary hitters (and probably the small fry) choose their own licences, without bothering to see if someone else's would do as well (assuming they could legally use it, which they probably couldn't). As an example, (parts of) the Microsoft EULA are suspected of being legally unenforceable in at least several European states, but because of the "one throat to choke" principle, we've ended up with a company who can choke just about anyone else's throat, and whose throat is too big for just about anyone else to choke, so the legality of the EULA has (to my knowledge) never been challenged.

And before anyone starts to rant about me getting at Microsoft again, this is exactly what DOES happen when a single proprietary technology is chosen above all others; it doesn't matter whether that proprietary technology belongs to Microsoft or not, because it could happen to anybody; and [/i]in some ways[/i] it's preferable to having lots of different companies producing PC-DOS and MS-DOS and AmigaDOS and AtariDOS and ThisDOS and ThatDOS and CP/M and RSX-11 and TOPS-10 and IRIX and Venix and...

Actually, he was using Microsoft as an example of a proprietary company. He even used a disclaimer about this in the second paragraph of his post, which you apparently didn't read, because he assumed that someone would accuse him of obsessing about Microsoft.

Knee-jerk much?

Maybe he just likes to see members of the Microsoft Defense Brigade throw hissy fits.

Linux is successful. Success doesn't require a monopoly, you know.

Anyway, this is off-topic, and I should know better than to argue with trolls.

Maybe because Microsoft is the biggest proprietary software company?

Yes-ish. It's the only one everyone everywhere (in the West, anyway) has contact with. Not even IBM can make that claim, or ever could.

One of the biggest obstacles in open source is this obsession with licenses, lawyers and arguments over some kind of true religious way. We don't bring the same obsession to other areas of life, so why bring it to this? Every time you think of lawyers you are wasting energy that could be spend on a host of more pleasurable activities.

Where the hell have you been? Lawyers are more involved with proprietary software than open source software by a long shot. Either you're too young or your memory is just too foggy to remember the MS antitrust suit, or the RIM patent lawsuit, or perhaps even the user interface lawsuit Apple filed against MS so long ago. If you think license issues are constrained to open source software you are hopelessly out of touch with reality.

No doubt this particular spat is important - to those directly involved. And by any yardstick that's going to be an awfully small number of people compared to the totality of open source folks let alone PC folks generally. To the rest of us, if we're honest, breakfast comes a long way ahead when considering what's important and urgent.

If you don't care about tech news then maybe you should get your news from elsewhere. Try a subscription to PC Mag, it's probably more your speed.

You completely miss the point. This isn't tech news at all, and arguably it isn't news. At best it is a legal detail with the word "possibly" attached. It has nothing to do with the amount of lawyerdom involved in open source software as distinct from proprietary software, either.

I'm sorry if your first thought on waking is "I must check up on the legal disputes today because that's what all good, right-on tech folks do" but that is what you're saying. And if you think this has anything worthwhile to do with technology then it is you, not I, who's been reading too many tech articles on the internet lately.

No interest here in taking America's completely absurd legal and patent system at face value, and with it the sheer self-importance of thinking that if lawyers are involved, wow, this must be significant news. Look around at the great inventions of the last 20 years and ask how many of them were made by a lawyer.

I'm sorry if your first thought on waking is "I must check up on the legal disputes today because that's what all good, right-on tech folks do" but that is what you're saying. And if you think this has anything worthwhile to do with technology then it is you, not I, who's been reading too many tech articles on the internet lately.

Sorry buddy, but if you work in the industry legal disputes are very important. My point was that if you only care about consumer PC/gadget BS then maybe you should go somewhere else because OSNews keeps abreast of a lot of legal disputes in the tech industry and I for one am happy that they do and it is one of the main reasons I frequent the site.

Actually, if it were a company like Microsoft, they'd immediately threaten to sue, but not actually tell you what you'd done wrong

From the last sentence:
"If you want to receive any of the listed sources codes, please send your request to license@parallels.com"

"Yawning ..........."

If you'd actually RTFA, you'd see WINE already mailed that address, and others besides. Did you really think everyone had overlooked that line? Oh well, +1 obvious for you.

Unless I misread your meaning and you are yawning as you wait for parallels to respond to said code requests

Anyway, it amazes me that they feel the need to wait for legal department approval. They know they are obligated to release it: the existence of that line on their page proves it. It's maddening that they put it there to make it look like they are compliant when they aren't. It's a show, a facade, hypocrisy.

I was on the fence for choosing vmware or parallels for an upcoming Mac purchase. This can only help push me in a certain direction.

Well, they can't just "offer" it...they have to deliver it, and this hasn't happened yet. That's the whole point of the article.

Confusing post.

What you're saying is that Parallels support is bad, and then it's good? We all know that "fresh frozen" and "military intelligence" aren't oxymorons. It's a logical fallacy to claim they are

Half-funny post, but it works better when one doesn't make elementary errors

sorry, i modded you up by mistake..

there is a f--king time limit, and its immediately when someone asks, no f--king "though legal department" or any such crap. that stuff must have already happened, THEY choose to accept the license, they cant then later go "um we'll see if its legally possible for us" when someone then asks for the code.

Edited 2007-07-02 17:10