SWSoft, the company behind Parallels Desktop for Mac, is possibly violating the LGPL license by using LGPL libraries from the WINE project without providing access to the source code. The WINE project first discovered the violation early this June, and after several failed attempts at getting the source code to the libraries, they set up a wiki page to keep track of the ongoing violation. The WINE project wants to resolve the issue “without starting legal action”. Thanks to MacWereld for pointing this out [Dutch].
They can’t even use the LGPL correctly. They just have to give back the changes they made , and not open everything, either that or quit distributing the software. With the hordes of OSNewsers, slashdotters, and diggers raising a fuss, I’m sure this will be cleared up rather quickly.
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
Too bad it wasn’t the GPL, would’ve been great. This will probably go away without too much fuss.
Edited 2007-07-01 11:13
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.
From the first paragraph of the wiki:
“This page is meant for keeping track of this, without starting legal action or a publicity campaign yet.”
But hopefully quickly resolved…
This post is a bit sentimental.. but I mean, if Parallels use Wine code, shouldn’t they at least show the courtesy of actually releasing the source code changes right away? How hard can it be? It’s as easy as saying ‘thanks’. Instead they’re being busy with other stuff and totally disregarding the matter, it seems.
or a good situation to be in. Any kind of license violation can be exstremly damaging to a company’s reputation.
When it comes to ‘advanced’ users, in my experience the company ends up looking like a thief. On the other hand, when said company wishes to deal with other companies in the future, implied incompetence seems to color the other companies dealings.
Not that I feel sorry for parallels when it looks like they brought it on themselves.
“””
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.
Hey, it’s a lovely new day, so what shall I do today? I know, I’ll forget windsurfing or coding my wonderful new app or giving my parter a treat – yes, instead today I’ll get involved in a licensing and legal dispute.
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.
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.
Perhaps a sense of proportion has gone astray here? Well, maybe it’s just a slow news day at OS News Central.
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.
I disagree. If someone pirates copyrighted material, that is going against the other’s wishes. That is wrong, and should be denounced. Not respecting a license is the *exact* same thing.
Well, you don’t get to pick and choose. Either you believe in copyright, or you don’t. Copyright means respecting the author’s wishes – if that wish is to use a copyleft license, then that is his/her right, and it’s every bit as legitimate as choosing a proprietary license.
What if you want people to have free access/redistribution rights to what you did, and make sure that others have free access/redistribution rights to whatever modifications are made? That’s why we have copyleft licenses, for those people who *choose* this.
Anyway, you make a point: I don’t really believe in copyright in this context.
Well, you don’t get to pick and choose. Either you believe in copyright, or you don’t. Copyright means respecting the author’s wishes – if that wish is to use a copyleft license, then that is his/her right, and it’s every bit as legitimate as choosing a proprietary license.
You are right, that was a weak explanation. What I was trying to say was that I think that using copyright in this context is silly. I believe that copyright in any context is a legal, not moral, issue. That is to say, I think of it as merely a useful tool for making money, with no further moral significance.
Frankly, I think that “copyleft” is just an ego thing. I do not think that I am smart enough to come up with all of the ways someone might want to use a thing I make. Therefore, if I do not intend to use it to make money, I believe it is only reasonable to put it in the public domain.
In other words, I think it is unnecessarily prideful of an author to think that anyone particularly cares about his wishes.
There are other things in life than making money. Having source code open so that others may learn from it, modify it and redistributing it – but making sure they give the rest of the community the same rights – is important to some people. You may not care for it, but that doesn’t mean it’s silly. In fact, it has allowed for small projects to become better over time through online collaboration.
That’s not the point at all. In fact, that has nothing to do with it. If I write something and GPL it, I’m not assuming I can come up with all the ways someone might modify it and redistribute it (note: “use” is irrelevant to a copyright license). On the contrary, I assume that anyone who writes GPLed software would be happily surprised if someone modified it in a way they hadn’t thought of.
Not if you want the community to have the same kind of access to any derivatives of the code.
It has nothing to do with pride. Rather, it’s about sharing, and making sure that the sharing is propagated along with the code. As for caring about the author’s wishes on how his intellectual property can be redistributed, well, that’s what copyright law is about. Whether the compensation is money, or the knowledge that the code and its derivatives will continue to be free, is entirely up to those who produce the code.
That said, you’re free to release code into the public domain if you want – that’s your prerogative as the author – but to claim that this is purely an ego thing is erroneous, and seems to indicate that you simply don’t understand the motives behind a copyleft license.
There are other things in life than making money.
Ah, the obvious. I can’t remember if I first heard this from my mom or a greeting card. The meat of the statement was whether copyright has a moral element. I was hoping you could weigh in on that, rather than just pointing out the obvious.
That’s not the point at all. In fact, that has nothing to do with it. If I write something and GPL it, I’m not assuming I can come up with all the ways someone might modify it and redistribute it (note: “use” is irrelevant to a copyright license). On the contrary, I assume that anyone who writes GPLed software would be happily surprised if someone modified it in a way they hadn’t thought of.
More obviousness. By “use” I mean “do anything at all with”. This includes modification, redistribution, bird cage lining, etc. The point is that by using the GPL, an author states that a third party may only “use” the code in certain ways, for example not to make closed source software. I know that you know this, so why conflate it with whether an author would be happy if someone fixed their code in a novel way?
[on the public domain]
Not if you want the community to have the same kind of access to any derivatives of the code.
Practice shows that this is not necessary. Consider BSD. And yes, I know that BSD is not the same as the public domain, but I think it is similarly ego-free.
In other words, without restrictive copyleft, we would still have free software. With BSD, or public domain, we have code that anyone can “put to” (oops, another word not relevant to copyright law), any “use” they see fit. I like this.
but to claim that this is purely an ego thing is erroneous, and seems to indicate that you simply don’t understand the motives behind a copyleft license.
I understand them, I just don’t agree with them or believe they have a moral component. I respect a person who can give with no strings attached. I do not respect people who feel the need to propagate their ideology by lawyers and courts.
Don’t be so arrogant. You’re the one who said copyright was “merely a useful tool for making money”. I simply pointed out that this was obviously not the case since people use it for different purposes.
If you hadn’t made such an inane statement, I wouldn’t have had to point out the obvious.
There is certainly a moral element to copyright, since laws are enacted to uphold moral doctrines. This, however, is getting quite off-topic, so for the time being let’s just agree about the legal dimension of copyright.
Actually, “use” is too ambiguous in this context to cover redistribution. The GPL (or any other copyright license) cannot dictate how one can use the software, that is to say to what purpose the software can be utilized. Copying and redistribution, however, *are* what copyright law and the GPL are all about.
We can’t have a rational discussion about this if you use these kinds of ambiguous statements.
Actually, that is incorrect. I can certainly make closed-source based on GPL code. I cannot, however, redistribute it, as this would contravene the GPL (which, as we’ve already established, only covers redistribution). This is not an unlikely scenario, either. One could modify a GPL program to use it internally within a company (possibly giving a business advantage to it). He wouldn’t be required by law to provide the source of his modifications, since the program was not in fact redistributed.
I disagree.
Again, this has nothing to do with ego, and you have *not* made a convincing case otherwise. It is about ensuring that the code stays free, nothing else.
Copyleft is less restrictive than closed source. Are you saying that closed source is bad? It seems like you are for either extremes (either completely closed, or public domain), but against what stands in the middle. The only reason you have been able to give for that is some non-sequitur about how this is somehow related to “pride” and “ego”. I’m sorry, but that seems like just another smear towards the ideals set for by the GPL.
Again, you confound “use” and “distribution”. It seems like you are doing this deliberately, to make the GPL seem more restrictive than it really is. So let me restate the obvious, since you keep on making these ambiguous statements: the GPL doesn’t restrict anyone as to how they can use the code, only how they can redistribute it.
That’s your right, of course, but if you want to be logically consistent you should then also be opposed to closed-source software and EULAs, since they come with *lots* of strings attached, and absolutely require lawyers and courts to enforce them. I, personally, think that people have rights, and that there’s nothing wrong with these people using the courts to defend their rights if necessary.
I also respect the fact that you wouldn’t use the GPL for your own code, even though the reasons to do so don’t seem logically consistent – unless you are also against closed-source software.
I do, however, take exception with your (weakly argued) claim that ego and pride are the prime motivators for those choosing copyleft licenses. In my view, this is not only false but *insulting* to those people, who only want the code and its derivatives to remain free so that a maximum of people may benefit from it.
GPL is not about propagating an ideology, it is about propagating rights: the right to study, the right to modify, and the right to redistribute.
In any case, this is getting quite off-topic. Regardless of what you think, the fact of the matter is that what Parallels is doing is against the law, and as such the owners of the code are well within their rights to ask for the source to the modified code. Whether you feel this is moral or not is irrelevant, however you can’t be selective about it: if you state the WINE coders don’t have a moral right to ask for the source code, then you should also argue that a company, say Microsoft, shouldn’t be able to stop people from pirating their products. The two are equivalent, both from a moral and legal standpoint.
Edited 2007-07-02 03:53
I have to re-order some of this for coherence:
More obviousness. By “use” I mean “do anything at all with”. This includes modification, redistribution, bird cage lining, etc.
Actually, “use” is too ambiguous in this context to cover redistribution.
I defined the term “use” as “to do anything at all with”. There is literally nothing ambiguous about this. You seem to want it defined as “to be employed by a user” with user in the computer sense. That is fine, but it has nothing to do with my intent, as defined. At any rate it is plain that “to redistribute” is covered by “to do anything at all”.
With BSD, or public domain, we have code that anyone can “put to” (oops, another word not relevant to copyright law), any “use” they see fit. I like this.
Again, you confound “use” and “distribution”. It seems like you are doing this deliberately, to make the GPL seem more restrictive than it really is.
Read. The term “use” was defined clearly, as above.
Practice shows that this is not necessary.
I disagree.
Reason? If you are correct, can you explain why BSD works even though it allows closed source changes to be redistributed?
Copyleft is less restrictive than closed source. Are you saying that closed source is bad?
I am saying that open source software does not require restrictive copyleft to work. You have said nothing to demonstrate otherwise. In truth I think that both open source software and closed source software are good.
I do, however, take exception with your (weakly argued) claim that ego and pride are the prime motivators for those choosing copyleft licenses. In my view, this is not only false but *insulting* to those people, who only want the code and its derivatives to remain free so that a maximum of people may benefit from it.
Insulting? This is the arena of ideas and some people will be wrong and feel upset about that. You may think I am wrong. That’s fine. I think you can agree that we are here for enjoyment and if we were afraid of being insulted, we would garden instead. Often times I do.
GPL is not about propagating an ideology, it is about propagating rights: the right to study, the right to modify, and the right to redistribute.
I think it would be tough to argue that these are natural rights, so it is reasonable to say that believing that these are, in fact, rights is an ideology. I think you are bothered by the connotation of extremism that the word “ideology” often has–but all I mean by it is “a set of beliefs”.
Regardless of what you think, the fact of the matter is that what Parallels is doing is against the law, and as such the owners of the code are well within their rights to ask for the source to the modified code. Whether you feel this is moral or not is irrelevant, however you can’t be selective about it
You are right–what the WINE coders are doing is legal. I never said it was not. As to whether it is moral, the answer is NaN. My contention is that it is dumb.
BSD works because a large fraction of people like to help people. I take this as a (pretty nice!) feature of human nature which is mostly fixed. As such, I see no reason to hold a lawyer to someone’s head and force them to conform to your ideology. There are plenty of people out there who will help you anyway.
It boils down to your priorities. You can accept that restrictive copyright/left will always be violated and focus on doing what you do best, which is code. Or you can engage in ideological battles. My point about ego is rooted in the idea that many people believe that they can give something away and still have control over it–their ego tells them that they did a great thing, so they deserve it! But all information wants to be free, code or otherwise, and if you don’t take steps to hide it, there should be no surprise that someone “uses” it in a way you do not like. My advice: get over it and code.
Edited 2007-07-02 05:45
It *is* ambiguous if you lump the two meanings (“utilize” and “redistribute”) together, because the GPL only covers one of them. If you define “use” as “to do anything at all with” you end up with contradictory statements, i.e. “the GPL cannot dictate how you use (utilize) software” and “the GPL dictates how you can use (distribute) software”. So for clarity’s sake your definition is at best unhelpful, at worst misleading.
No, it was ambiguously defined as an amalgamate of various different meanings.
It doesn’t work if you want derivatives to remain open source.
Again, it doesn’t work if the original intent is for derivatives to remain open.
It is indeed insulting to ascribe motives that are basically selfish (ego, pride) when in reality the motives are altruistic (have the code available to all, and make sure derivatives are available to all).
I did not say that these are natural rights. They are *granted* rights. It is very pragmatic, and doesn’t have much to do with ideology. By saying that someone can redistribute the software, one is indeed granting a right that is not covered by copyright law. It doesn’t matter if one believes that this is a natural right or not – the act of granting it makes it an actual right.
Again, that is quite insulting. Protecting your IP isn’t dumb. Making people respect the license you have chosen isn’t dumb, not any more than asking someone for money in exchange for a sale.
Look at it this way (since you say that closed source software is fine). It is perfectly reasonable for someone to ask compensation for copyrighted work. Most of the time, that compensation is money. However, compensation can also be the acceptance that the same rights granted to the recipient must be passed on to others. There’s nothing dumb about that, in fact it is quite clever, because it ensures that others will be able to learn, modify and redistribute the derivatives.
Many people also like to produce closed-source software, which denies others the possibility to examine, modify and redistribute the source – something that is clearly not “helpful”, according to your defintion. The GPL ensures that the rights granted are passed on.
Again, this is not about ideology, but about the conditions one chooses to apply for redistribution rights. Legal action is only necessary if someone doesn’t respect those conditions, in which cases normal copyright law applies, which forbids unauthorized redistribution (not examination or modification). I really don’t see why you have a problem with people defending themselves when their legal rights are not being respected. Again, if you think this is dumb, then you should also believe that it’s dumb for someone who produces closed-source software to try to prevent it from being illegally distributed.
BTW, I’m not sure how you “hold a lawyer to someone’s head”. That sounds pretty awkward…
This is a “false choice” fallacy. One can in fact do both.
You don’t “give something away” when you release it under the GPL, you “share it” with others and make sure that they will also share whatever modifications they make. This is no more egotistical than making proprietary software – in fact, it is less so, because you are giving recipients *more* rights with the GPL than with proprietary software.
In fact, they don’t have control over it – I could take your GPL code and make an app with it which you wouldn’t like. The license does dictate that I need to extend the rights I received when I decided to redistribute the code, but it does not govern how I can utilize or modify the code in any way.
So no, people who release GPLed code don’t believe they can control it – the only believe that the code derivatives will continue to be free.
Someone can use GPLed software in a way the author doesn’t like, as long as the same rights enjoyed by the recipient are passed on to others when (and if) the code is redistributed.
Again, “use” and “redistribution” are two different things. Your insistence on ambiguously combining the two words together makes it seem as if you are actively trying to obfuscate the debate, probably in order to detract attention from the weakness of your arguments against the GPL, and your insulting insinuations about the motives of those who choose to use it.
My advice: pick whatever license you want, and respect the choice of those who decide to use copyleft licenses for their code, the same way you would respect those who would pick more restrictive licensing schemes (such as closed-source software).
In a general sense, this is not correct.
You may indeed “use” GPL software (such as Linux, gcc and emacs), to make closed-source applications. You can write your own application code to your heart’s content, compile it and distribute it and license it however you please.
The thing that you are not permitted to do by the GPL license via which you received some code is to incorporate the source code from that GPL project as part of your closed source application.
Edited 2007-07-02 05:14
The collaboration that copyleft enables makes it possible for a lot of people who know more than you about parts of your code’s problem space to modify your code and make it better in those areas.
The combined knowledge of many programmers is greater than that of any one individual programmer.
In this way, copyleft enables the whole made up of contributions of experts in several of its parts to be greater than the whole made by a single non-expert to begin with.
The major benefit of GPL in open source development, over say the permissive BSD license or simple public domain, is that GPL guarantees the code will remain liberated (ie free), and that all downstream recipients of the code will enjoy the four freedoms, and the GPL actively fosters improvement and evolution of the code into a better product.
It is the opposite of prideful to release your code to the GPL, and allow others who know parts of the problem better than you do to improve on your initial efforts. If anything, it is an act of self-depreciation.
Have a look at the video, or read about Eben Moglen’s speech as linked from here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070630094005112
Eben has a far better handle on the nature of contributions to open source, and can express that far more eloquently than I can.
“We can produce anything of value, utility, or beauty that can be represented by a bitstream, which increasingly means all beautiful and useful human activity, anywhere, at any time, to anyone, at no more cost than the fixed cost which created the first copy of the relevant bitstream. That fixed cost may be, under certain circumstances, very substantial. There is no question that it continues to cost money to acquire knowledge and to represent it in beautiful and useful ways.
But what has changed is that the marginal cost of the additional copy of each bitstream has gone to zero, and with that change fundamental economic reordering begins in global society. By the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, almost everything which it has been in the past the purpose of industrial civilization to put into analog representations of information — music, video, art, useful information concerning the operation of the physical environment, political ideas, comedy, drama — will all be universally represented in de-physicalized forms that it costs nothing to make, move, and deliver.
The consequence of those changes is the onset of a very powerful moral question. If it is possible, easily possible, to give to each human being who wishes it, anything of utility or beauty in our world of civilization, if it is possible to deliver any such entity anywhere at any time at low cost or at zero cost, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone from anything she wants? Why is it ever moral to deprive people of that which they could have for nothing and which they wish to have, and you already have made? If you could feed everyone by baking one loaf of bread and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for permitting the price of bread to be higher than the poorest hungry person could pay? “
Edited 2007-07-02 09:33
What cracks me up is people like you who on one hand defend GPL and LGPL with your life and oppose DRM and other licenses.
Talk about hypocrisy in OSS world.
Feels good to not be a part of Stallman breed. BSD forever…FSS (GPL/LGPL) never….
Right…which is why I work on producing proprietary software products for a living.
I don’t oppose other licenses. I have nothing against BSD, or MIT, or the Apache license. Unlike you, I simply respect the choice of the copyright holder.
Then again, I should not expect too much from trolls.
“Feels good to not be a part of Stallman breed. BSD forever…FSS (GPL/LGPL) never….”
I’ll drink to that
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…
Here we go twenex dragging Microsoft in yet another unrelated discussion.
I don’t know what is your obsession with Microsoft Twenex but it ain’t healthy is what I can tell you. Let go and be happy…don’t be so bitter all the time.
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?
Why doesn’t he use IBM or Apple?
Maybe he just likes to see members of the Microsoft Defense Brigade throw hissy fits.
Or may be he is obsessed with Microsoft? I know it hurts to see your favourtie OS not being successful or is this the year of Linux desktop…lol
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.
It’s funny how on Wine’s wiki page Parallels state that they’re “awaiting legal department approval”. So that “legal department” had no problem approving just using someone else’s code without giving it any thought but now it has to “approve” the thing that it’s been bound to do by the agreement the moment they started using that code!
not much too discuss….
This is a obvious violation, not just for the WINE code but the other LGPL code since I cannot find ANY source code download anywhere.
Someone………..asked them about the source again
http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=13931
and it was originally asked in this thread
http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=12648
which appears to have been quickly archived even though it is only a month old and no resolution seem to come from it.
So IMO it is obvious they are violating the license and they know this and still choose to not release source code changes.
That’s ok.
We’ll fire up our bittorrent and borow their code.
People who use the “ask 10 random people on the street” about this issue aren’t realizing that 10 random people on the street aren’t even going to know what Parallels is, let alone care if they are using someone else’s code against the terms of the license.
I always ask why such a big morality about software though. This isn’t a morality question, it’s a “I used your code but am refusing to use your rules for using your code” problem. This is the main reason that the Wine project switched their license to LGPL in the first place, because Transgaming decided to take Wine code and make it commercial without giving anything back to the community.
The Wine project isn’t even going the legal route yet. They’re just saying “please don’t use our code without giving us your modifications.” They’re playing nice. I can guarantee that if it were a company like Microsoft, they would just immediately sue without asking.
Actually, if it were a company like Microsoft, they’d immediately threaten to sue, but not actually tell you what you’d done wrong
Some people are not looking at this correctly. Individual authors, not some “WINE” corporation, have altruistically given their time and effort to Open Source software. Then they put the LGPL header on their source files. Remember, this is NOT public domain code. It is still theirs. The LGPL takes non-public code and confers very generous freedoms to downstream users of the code. Basically all they want is for those users to be equally generous to others. It should not be too burdensome for people to be honest and respect the terms of such a well-intentioned gift.
http://www.parallels.com/en/licensing/
From the last sentence:
“If you want to receive any of the listed sources codes, please send your request to [email protected]”
“Yawning ………..”
From the last sentence:
“If you want to receive any of the listed sources codes, please send your request to [email protected]”
“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.
“Unless I misread your meaning and you are yawning as you wait for parallels to respond to said code requests
”
Sorry!, I should have been a little more specific
This whole thread should have ended, because there is NO violation!
Parallels has already complied by *offering* the sources to whomever wants it. And that’s “The End”.
If anyone has doubts, then go back and read the LGPL license.
Thanks!
(BTW, my *yawn* comment is because I YAWN every time I see *another* (and another (and another…etc.)) GPL argument
)
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.
The Wine guys sent emails to Parallells support to have an issue resolved – this has proven ineffective for all users of Parallells software, why should it work for the Wine guys?
Parallells support is as much an oxymoron as “fresh frozen” and “military intelligence”.
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
I just hope they settle the matter in most respectful fashion by providing the code changes back to the community and refraining from making the same mistake again in the future.
i’d seek to stop them from ever distributing parallels again using that code.
they KNEW it was lgpl covered when they took it, they could read lgpl, they said it would not take long, yet it did. They do not deserve the right to use the software.
well, its good to know that they like copyright violations themself, i sure hope they dont care if people are “pirating” their software.
It’s not like they have said they WON’T give the source code back, it’s just taking some time, why the rush? Are there any time limit in the lgpl?
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
Some people here tend to minimize or misunderstand what the GPL/LGPL mean. Let me use an agreement I have with my neighbor. I will let my neighbor use my lawnmower ONLy if he returns it clean and WITH a full tank of gas. That is the agreement. If he is not willing to do that, then I will not let use it ever again and then they should go an buy their own lawnmower. With GPL/LGPL the developers agreement is that they will allow other developers use their code with the understanding they will make public any changes they make to the original code. If they are not willing to give back their modifications then they should not use the code others have develop and they should go and develop their own from scratch. I think is fair and simple enough. Why is so hard for some to understand that?