In reply to an open letter by community member “why”, Lycoris founder and CTO, Joseph Cheek admits that they misunderstood the GPL, and promises to have the source for the evaluation edition available soon. Rus also apologized for the lack of an announcement regarding Lycoris’ new policy. Update: Read on for an official response from Lycoris:
To all,
I have just posted some news that lets eveyone know that Lycoris is
currently working to create and ISO containing the sources of the
Evaluation Edition of Desktop/LX Update 3. Although the letter of the
GPL does not mandate the availability of the ISO, we believe in the
spirit of the GPL and this community. Since so many folks would like
the source ISO available, we will create one. It is as simple as that.
Thank you for caring enough about the source to demand it’s presence. It means a lot. Honestly, since we get so few downloads of it, we figured it wasn’t a popular item and not worth the extra work to make an Eval
source ISO, which is different than the Full Edition source image. I’m
glad to be wrong. I’m glad Lycrois has large numbers of users that
care passionately about our products.
All my best,
Jason Spisak
Vice President of Marketing
Lycoris
http://www.lycoris.com
Desktop/LX: Familiar. Powerful. Fun.
Pretty hard to misunderstand the GPL… after all, “why” found the “violations” clearly answered in the FAQ. It wasn’t a case of a loop in the GPL or anything… plain as the nose on my face kind of thing.
In fact, there is no legal language that binds the provider of a binary to provide a downlaodable source ISO image in the GPL. It is only a suggested course of action. And we think a good one now that it’s been brought to our attention that people really want it more than was previously believed.
All my best,
Jason Spisak
I dont recall seeing anyone asking for an ISO image.. just the source… So yes, no binding to providing an ISO, but still a yes to providing the source along side the binaries
Source is required to be provided, yes. But it need not be available on the web or without previous request, and I believe you are even allowed to charge for the cost of printing a cd and sending offline should you (as a distributor) prefer such a method of distribution.
source needs to be available in some way or another at request. that is all.
But it is rather strange for a Linux company to not be aware that the source has to be made available for GPL software. How on earth could they not know?
Source only needs to be provided upon request. Period.
If a binary is made available by anonymous ftp, the source has to be available on the ftp site as well.
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSources
but if the binaries are freely downloadable eg: the eval edition, then the source in machine readable format along with changes eg: patches, have to be also provided via the same means. So a written offer is not required in this case.
Chill out yall, they heard the customer and responded *very* quickly. No harm. No foul.
Why not appreciate they listened and acted instead of continue arguing about it. They did the Right Thing.
Well, actually they didnt. Just a couple of days ago people where up in arms at the lack of detools and scr cds. They said this is new policy. The _only_ reason they listerned was because they were in clear violation of the GPL. None other. So IMHO does Lycoris listern to their users? Nope.. It was a response to a possible legal issue I am sure the company couldnt afford.
What else is there to say? Someone asked for the sources and they’ve said ‘Ok’.
Rich.
I didn’t like the GPL violation, but they apologized, and are trying to make ammends.
Good for them, more Companies should be this responsible.
> The _only_ reason they listerned was because they were in clear violation of the GPL
Erm.. i’ve never used Lycoris in my life (gentoo is fine for me), but can you point out how Lycoris was in violation of the GPL? The original post by Why showed some common preconceptions about the GPL- that source has to be released along side of binaries. This is NOT true. It only has to be available by request. Does anybody have any clear proof that Lycoris denied any requests for the source? ISO distribution is not stipulated by any form- but physical distribution is.
//
that source has to be released along side of binaries. This is NOT true.
//
This is not true. If you distribute binaries via FTP, you ALSO have to distribute source via FTP, NOT by request/email/mail only.
Check out the GPL FAQ.
Subject says it all.
I seem to recall the free Mandrake CD’s that were included in Maximum Linux magazine didn’t include source, just a note saying that source could be obtained upon request.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
Section 3, paragraph 3 and it reads:
Quote:
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
end Quote.
Can people please check their statments with fact before posting.
I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
You’re supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine–that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it’s easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.
If they have the source and binary on the same server then they are in complances with the GPL. If they don’t included the source on the FTP or provided a writen offer for the source to be sent by mail order then that is a violation.
Now back to lycoris the CD iso images is different then the CDs they are selling so corrently there is no way to get the source code for the binarys provided on downloaded ISO. Once they upload the source ISO they will be incomplance with the GPL for that part.
Even after they upload the ISO image they still will not be in complance with the GPL because they are distubuting updated binary packages thru there update wizard, a ftp server, but not includeding the source code for those updates.
Pretty hard to misunderstand the GPL
The GPL is a license so incomprehensible and ambiguous that it escapes definitive litigious interpretation outside a court setting.
I’m currently in discussion with Trolltech and their legal department as to whether or not it’s possible to release binaries of a BSD license application statically linked with the GPL licened Qt. The problem lies in that such an application meets the GPL’s requirements for a binary release, including the stipulation of equivalent access, but may or may not meet the requirements of a derived work.
If you believe you have the answer to this question, let me assure you that unless you are a lawyer, you most assuredly don’t. A layman’s interpretation of the GPL is worthless, and in many cases comes from someone who hasn’t read the GPL in depth. It seems likely that in order for my BSD licensed application to be linked with the GPL Qt, it will need to be dual licensed under the GPL as well, which really seems to be no different than being licensed under only the BSD license, except that it fits more properly into the GPL’s legalese framework.
Here are some other areas in which the GPL is ambiguous:
What constitutes a derived work? Does dynamically linking against GPL code constitute a derived work?
What constitutes equivalent access? If a hardware manufacturer ships binaries compiled from GPL licensed code with their product, can they charge you the cost of the product in order to provide access to the source? Do they need to provide the source for free? Do they need to itemize the cost of hardware vs. software?
I greatly dislike the GPL because it is so ambiguous in these regards. While part of this is due to its antiquity, there is no excuse for the FSF failing to provide a “version 3” of the GPL which takes into account things like static vs. dynamic linking and uses these terms explicitly in the language of the license.
Can’t understand, sincerly.
Surces MUST be provided, NOT binaries !
Can’t understand, sincerly. Surces MUST be provided, NOT binaries !
Not quite, the cost of accessing source must be equivalent to (or less than) the cost of accessing binaries.
Richard Moore said:
“What else is there to say? Someone asked for the sources and they’ve said ‘Ok’.”
Read the earlier stuff. Earlier on they said (paraphrasing) “Sure, if you give us $10”. And “if you don’t like it tough, that’s our new non-announceed policy”.
contrasutra said:
“I didn’t like the GPL violation, but they apologized, and are trying to make ammends.”
Oh? Where was the apology? Joe certainly didn’t apologise. Nor did that marketspeak release. There was only reference to a misunderstanding. I don’t quite know how a company that has as it’s underpinnings something like the GPL can get the GPL so entirely wrong. I hate to say but it just feels like they were chancing their arm to see if they’d get away with it. That brings the question of why were they doing that? Are there financial issues going on maybe?
I hate to say but it just feels like they were chancing their arm to see if they’d get away with it.
It feels like that, doesn’t it? From what Joe was saying maybe they’re just sick of freeloaders.
As some may recall from prior posts, IAAL. Bascule, the problems you are having are in fact quite typical of copyright law and intellectual property licensing in general. (Lawyers – just helping to make the world a better place.;)
For example, the answer to the question of what is a “derivative work” has as much or more to do with the relevant copyright law as/than it does with the applicable license, so legal help may be necessary to answer it even if the relatively simple BSD license is the only one involved.
It is not my intention to persuade you or anyone else to like the GPL (I have not fully considered how I should feel about it myself), but to be absolutely fair, at least some of the hassle you are going through is not entirely due to the GPL alone.
In a time when SCO is deliberately trying to destroy the GPL I think all the companies providing Linux should present a united front. This means policing each other as well as SCO.It’s called practicing what you preach.Read the thread at lycoris through and find out who comunity member why is.
I have purchased a fair share of Lycoris products. Perhaps it’s time to donate something to blue linux. Good show Why.
“This is not true. If you distribute binaries via FTP, you ALSO have to distribute source via FTP, NOT by request/email/mail only.
Check out the GPL FAQ.”
Or this quiz
http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi
also states that question
“I greatly dislike the GPL because it is so ambiguous in these regards. While part of this is due to its antiquity, there is no excuse for the FSF failing to provide a “version 3″ of the GPL which takes into account things like static vs. dynamic linking and uses these terms explicitly in the language of the license.”
Mailed FSF yet, or are you demanding something which the other side doesn’t know you have a problem with their work?
I’m a bit confused about two parts of this discussion. First, I don’t see how anyone is required to offer source via FTP just because they offer binaries that way. Yes, the FSF FAQ says so, but the software isn’t licensed under the FAQ, it’s licensed under the GPL. The FAQ may be a semi-official interpretation of the GPL, but as far as I can tell such a requirement would be completely new, not merely an interpretation. The part of the GPL I assume we’re referring to is Section 3b:
“Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange”
Nothing about this seems to require what the FAQ tries to. And since we’re talking about GPL code here, once one person gets the source they can put up their own FTP source for it if they want. Am I missing something here?
Second, I don’t see why charging $10 is such a bad thing. It’s a bit steep, but they are allowed to charge for their costs in copying and redistributing the source. Nobody says they have to do it efficiently, either. It can easily imagine it costing a company $5, so $10 is not necessarily a ridiculous fee. Again, only one person has to ever do it.
The GPL is a license so incomprehensible and ambiguous that it escapes definitive litigious interpretation outside a court setting.
>>>>>>>>>>
Its not *that* bad. Its got a lot of legalease, but its no worse than other restrictive licenses like MSSL or SCSL.
It seems likely that in order for my BSD licensed application to be linked with the GPL Qt, it will need to be dual licensed under the GPL as well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IANAL, but I am familiar with Qt’s licensing vis a vis KDE. The gist of it is that your source code is not a derived work, but the resulting binary (post-linking) is. So the resulting binary is GPL’ed, and the source code is any license that allows the resulting binary to be GPL’ed. The latter is any license that is “GPL-compatible” according to the FAQ.
What constitutes equivalent access?
>>>>>>>>>
That’s not at all ambiguous. The “equivilent access” clause is just a clarification of clause 2b saying that providing access to the source in the same place as the binaries counts as distribution even if people don’t have to download the source. What do you find ambiguous?
Do they need to provide the source for free? Do they need to itemize the cost of hardware vs. software?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Distribution of source means anything that fulfils clause 2a, 2b, or 2c. 2a simply means putting the sources in the same place as the binary. 2a is also simple — provide a written offer for the source for no more than the cost of the CD and the shipping. 2c only applies for non-commercial entities, and simply allows you to pass along an offer you recieved from 2a.
This means that in your hardware manufacturer has to either provide the source on the CD that contains the binaries (“accompany it with” in 2a) or provide a written offer for the source (2a). There aren’t any other ways to fulfil the distribution clause.
While part of this is due to its antiquity, there is no excuse for the FSF failing to provide a “version 3” of the GPL which takes into account things like static vs. dynamic linking and uses these terms explicitly in the language of the license.
>>>>>>>>
They’re thinking about it. GPL v3 should clarify the linking stuff in addition to networking applications. I agree that the linking stuff really needs to be put in, or at least made an FAQ item. Its confused several KDE developers. The interpretation I gave above is the one accepted by the KDE developers, and has been corroberated by RMS.
How many of you complaining about not having the source code would actually make use of it?
I know that’s not really the point at hand, but it seems really silly to me to complain about not having access to something you wouldn’t use.
How many people will ever have to take advantage of habeus corpus? Its still nice to know that its there. Besides, its a matter of fulfilling legal requirements.
Here’s my interpretation of what he was trying to say:
>> To all,
To everyone who b*tched moaned, groaned and complained,
>> I have just posted some news that lets eveyone know that Lycoris is currently working to create and ISO containing the sources of the Evaluation Edition of Desktop/LX Update 3.
Since we got caught with our pants down with possibly violating the GPL, we going to do some damage control and try to put the source up.
>> Although the letter of the GPL does not mandate the availability of the ISO, we believe in the spirit of the GPL and this community.
Hell, since we want everyone to buy the damn thing(distribution) so we can make some money, we’re yanking the freebie version. Heck, while we’re at it, we’re not going to make the ISO source available but because we don’t want you to have it and we might get our @$$es sued, we’re going to make it available.
>> Since so many folks would like the source ISO available, we will create one. It is as simple as that.
We’re not going going to challenge the OSS community, we think its best before we get cremed we’re going to make the source available.
>> Thank you for caring enough about the source to demand it’s presence. It means a lot.
Thanks to your moaning and groaning about posting the source, since we don’t give a hoot about you having the source, I mean, heck, its our bread and better!
>> Honestly, since we get so few downloads of it, we figured it wasn’t a popular item and not worth the extra work to make an Eval source ISO, which is different than the Full Edition source image.
Since we don’t want you to have the ISO source, we figured why should we post it!
>> I’m glad to be wrong. I’m glad Lycrois has large numbers of users that care passionately about our products.
I am pissed that I you guys are making such a fuss about this but heck we matter due or else or butts are in the gutter.
>> All my best,
Until the next cycle of moaning and groaning. . .
—————–
That’s my interpretation of what the folks up at lycoris and what they really meant.
If you ask me, I don’t buy what they said.
Cycloneous
I have to agree with Anonymous (IP: —.wlawla.wa.charter.com) here. Lot’s of people are making a big deal out of the GPL FAQ, which, while helpful, is not authorative.
The GPL offers 3 options about how to distribute source. The 3rd option is not applicable to Lycoris, but both Options 1 and 2 are. Nothing in the GPL places any restrictions that would even imply that distributing by FTP places additional restrictions over distributing by CD. If Lycoris included a written offer for source with thier binaries, then that is valid under the GPL. And they are allowed to charge $10 for it, because that is quite a likely cost to them for making that copy (cost of media, hardware, time, packaging and postage).
Whether the FSF likes it or not, the GPL actually allows you to do what Lycoris did (if they included a written offer – I don’t know whether they did that)
Other parts of the “Evaluation Edition” may have been illegal – I haven’t looked into it – but I strongly believe Rus was correct when he said We have to provide the sources upon request, and can charge our distribution cost. (Media, postage, envelopes, cost of maintaining the equipment that the sources reside upon, etc.)
http://www.lycoris.org/viewtopic.php?topic=9187&forum=33&start=0
I don’t necessarily support the ethics of the view, but I’m strongly behind the legality.
Or this quiz
http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi
also states that question
It does no such thing.
I got the quiz completely correct, and there was no question that covered this issue.
You cannot link a “non-gpl” program to a gpl licensed library. HOWEVER, they came up with the LGPL to allow this.
I think it’s okay to charge for Sources: Free as in free speech not as in free beer. Newspapers don’t violate the First Amendment (US Constitution) because you have to pay for them (most of the time). (And By most of the time I mean you have to pay for them most of the time, not most of the time they don’t violate the constitution.)
You people make me laugh. Why don’t you actually find out what is legally binding? FAQ are NOT legally binding. For that matter, the preamble and the “how to apply these terms and conditions” are not binding.
Yes, I have the legal background – IAAL (I am a lawyer) is I believe the geek term for it. “Just read the FAQ to the GPL” is one of the most uninformed comments I’ve ever seen in my life.
I think I know where the misunderstanding comes from. It all depends on what you consider a written offer. If a written offer is a signed, physical document, then you can’t meet the requirements of GPL clause 2b, because you can’t provide a copy of the offer with the source code. Thus, you have to use the option in clause 2a, which entails offering source access from the same download site. If you look at “written offer” this way, the GPL FAQ makes sense.
On the other hand, I thought electronic documents had the same legal weight as paper documents, which makes an electronic written offer entirely valid, and thus makes the GPL FAQ non-sensical.
dpi (IP: —.ipv4.freeshell.bofx.net)
Mailed FSF yet, or are you demanding something which the other side doesn’t know you have a problem with their work?
Yes, I mailed [email protected] twice in the past month asking for their interpretation of these issues and have not received a response. If someone knows of a better address to send GPL related questions to I would like to hear it.
Rayiner Hashem (IP: —.res.gatech.edu)
That’s not at all ambiguous. The “equivilent access” clause is just a clarification of clause 2b saying that providing access to the source in the same place as the binaries counts as distribution even if people don’t have to download the source. What do you find ambiguous?
Okay, now I understand the purpose of the equivalent access clause, and it seems I was simply misunderstanding it: it’s used to specify how much can be charged for downloadable source versus distribution by physical media. Otherwise you may only charge for the cost of distribution via physical media.
tpv: Oh no? “FooCorp distributes binaries of Joan’s GPL’d web browser on CD without source code. They include an offer to provide source code. Which of the following offers fulfills their obligations under the GPL?”
Ofcourse the FAQ (and Quiz, FWIW) is not binding. Only the GPL license is binding in this situation. Even the translations of the GPL license aren’t binding. They make it easier to understand, though. Without such, one has to hire an expensive IAAL-person
Lycoris could have hired a lawyer if they wanted to. Seems to me they chose not to, neither did ‘why’ – all this afawct.
“Legally speaking, the original (English) version of the GPL is what specified the actual distribution terms for GNU programs. But to help people better understand the licenses, we give permission to publish translations into other languages if the translations provided that they follow our regulations for unofficial translations.”
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#Translations
Bascule: sad to hear. My experience with FSF is either a somehow late reply (2-7 days) or none at all. I find a few other e-mail addresses in the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html but i don’t think that really helps…
A few weeks back, the media was alight about the ammount of electronic information that was keyed in last year… It makes me wonder just how much of that was stupid arguments over the understanding of the GPL… sheesh…. I’ve heard this rerun more then i’ve seen M.A.S.H.
FooCorp distributes binaries of Joan’s GPL’d web browser on CD without source code. They include an offer to provide source code.
Right but, neither of those points apply directly to the Lycoris situation.
(1) Lycoris is not distributing by CD, but by FTP, and there are (very dubious) claims being made here that doing so changes their obligations somehow.
(2) It is not clear whether Lycoris did provide a written offer, or even whether they can do so for binaries distributed in a purely electronic manner. (i.e. Where there is no physical media).
Now, my understanding is that distribution by FTP is not different to distribution by CD, and that an electronic offer does constitute a “written offer”. However most of the arguments here take a different view.
The quiz does not include any questions which would give any insight into what the FSF’s view on the matter is.
My conclusion here is that legally Lycoris is probably right, but they grossly under-estimated the amount of ranting and whining that they would get hit with.
In the end it’s cheaper and easier for them to simply provide the source (as they have now promised) – i.e. Give in to the masses of complaining voices, and give up your right to do things differently.
Jospeh Cheeks initial long response to the flare-up in the Community Forums was really bad and, I think, hurt the Lycoris community. He seemed tired and angry and was terse with even those who have bought Lycoris or contributed to it. To me, this response was/is the biggest problem as the Lycoris community is very loyal and helpful to newbies, etc. A lot of damage done there.
Lycoris is an odd enity. They work hard to make as friendly a Linux expereince as possible and they succeed in that. Yet, they are still stuck in KDE 2.2.2 and it sounded like there may be several more updates before they move to their Beryl release, which is assumed to use KDE 3.x. I don’t know how long they can continue this as the improvements in KDE itself have been vast.
I’m not quite sure about this…but I think when I bought Update 2 regular edition, it was $29.95 and now Update 3 is $40.00. So, I don’t know…if their behavior was motivated by trying to get around aspects of the GPL or if it’s that they really, really need the money. Despite whatever the GPL says, loyal users typically expect releases will be treated the same way as they always have been – i.e. regular dowmloadable iso’s with no “Evaluation Copy” labelled on it, etc. The problem is, Lycoris just always did things this way, but apparantly had no official policy about it (or so they say). Not making an announcement with an explanation and Joseph’s initial post were the big mistakes, I think, not so much any technical violation of the GPL. Attitude counts for a lot.
How is pysol worth $20?
“The problem is, Lycoris just always did things this way, but apparantly had no official policy about it (or so they say). Not making an announcement with an explanation and Joseph’s initial post were the big mistakes, I think, not so much any technical violation of the GPL. Attitude counts for a lot.”
No official policy but a press release from a marketing manager that wasn’t rescinded for 2 years, until the comment now from Joe that the release wasn’t approved by him.
So what was it? A complete and utter lack of professionalism in the organisation or a convenient scapegoat?
Something as HUGE a deal as the “free ISO download forever” press release can’t be discarded as the whim of an errant marketer two years later to suit. Awful.
Mr. Johnson: IAAL also. I’ve been involved in intellectual property litigation and licensing (though not for a long time), as well as contract drafting and interpretation (these latter two currently). Since the FAQ is an attempt by the folks responsible for the GPL to clarify issues associated with it, reading it is an excellent way to attempt to understand those issues, particularly for non-lawyers. Thus, regarding your “You people make me laugh” comment, I’d say the joke’s on you.
Rayiner: Electronic documents have the same legal effect as paper in many, but not all, circumstances under U.S. law. Regarding how this might bear on the FAQ and interpretation of the GPL, I must admit I don’t feel like researching the question unless someone pays me. 😉
I must say I’m more than a bit surprised to see almost a GPL-war here at OSNews. Surprised, but amused. 🙂
To add some more fuel to the fire, my interpretation is that the freedoms granted by the GPL (where, as we all know, most other software licenses work hard to restrict freedoms – often to the maximum extent possible) do not only pertain to what *you* might do with the software, but to the software itself. That is, the GPL is not only to give you the freedoms, but actually to give the *software itself* the freedoms.
The software is the “child” of some peoples labor. The author(s) want to make sure that “child” is never, ever, put in the jail proprietary software is in, and *always* enjoys the freedoms. If someone can’t accept those right given to the software by its author(s), they (the GPL violators) also loose the rights given *them*.
I think that’s ethically, and morally, a pretty good thing – either you also uphold the rights of the software given by the original author(s) if you distribute binaries of it, or you loose the rights to distribute the software. All of them. If some violator denies the rights given to the software by its license, why should they still enjoy the rights given to them by the very same license?
To put it in another perspective (I know, it’s starting to look I’m coming from another planet, but it’s not too often I get the chance to share this view – so please bear with me 🙂 ), you are often free to do pretty much anything so long as you don’t harm anything or anyone else. This is made possible by rights you have (been given). However, if you enslave or otherwise restrict the freedoms of another person (without consent, of course 😉 ) your rights to a “free” life will rather quickly and abruptly be terminated. You’d be thrown in the slammer.
With that analogy (even that it’s not really an analogy, the correct word just fails me right now) in mind, the ones that *only* have to publish the source code to make up for their already committed violations are in this context getting off the hook quite cheap. Not only do they *still* enjoy the rights to distribute the software, they also keep their previous status as “free”.
According to DistroWatch, Lycoris also left off Kernel-sources and development software which would make it pretty difficult to compile new modules to the kernel.
Here Lycoris CTO Joe Cheek is replying to a previous message in a forum:
************************************************************
Previous post:
———————————————————————- ———-
I find it disturbing that a company selling a Linux distribution complains when people don’t buy their product. It’s Linux! It’s “free”! (note the parentheses).
———————————————————————- ———-
Cheek’s reply:
Desktop/LX is an alternative Desktop OS, based on Linux. It’s not a Linux distribution, nor is it free, to create or to duplicate without restriction. Currently it is free to duplicate without cost under certain circumstances, but that may change in the future as well.
************************************************************
Quite obvious that Lycoris wanted to go proprietary until the small matter of licensing violations was raised. (It’s “based on Linux” but “not a Linux distribution.” Hah!)
Damn… that is so sad.
You know I don’t mind a distro that charges. But they have to be honest, decent and upfront about it. Lindows, Xandros. Up front, we charge. No problem.
This backdoor changing of the model, the disdain for the people that helped get them going… not good.
I certainly won’t be looking at them anymore and think I’m probably not alone after this case of extreme arrogance. :
You do not even READ things – you SKIM! NOWHERE on their site do they sell PySol. They sell a product called Solitaire Ace – a new product which is based on PySol. Either learn to read before you post or just don’t post. I vote you do the latter. Latter means “the second one.” Apparently you need things spelled out, and even then you don’t have a clue.
You apparently are also one of those people who think the GPL FAQ is legally binding, that the preamble to the GPL is part of the Terms & Conditions – and that “how to apply these terms & conditions” is also legally binding.
Since you have zero legal training, please refrain from comment on such issues. Linux gets a black eye from people that do this.
Now they’re charging $20 for pysol!
By confused (IP: 24.244.198.—) – Posted on 2003-11-11 12:23:32
How is pysol worth $20?
Usual disclaimer: IAAL.
The only problem with this argument is that the FAQ to the GPL are not included in the licensing agreement in question (the GPL). Therefore this line of reasoning is without merit. If the FAQ were something that the average user had to agree to on a clickthrough license, then I might agree that they were legally binding. Since the user never agrees to them, they have no bearing on this issue. This doesn’t need to be researched.
I most certainly agree that electronic documents would constitute a written offer, as the GPL is poorly worded (even though written by an attorney), and it references them on occasion. The most recent version does less of this. However, referencing something that is not accessible (think modem user agreeing to the GPL before they can connect to the internet to check it) to the licensee (user) cannot be held enforceable.
Your response?
Johnson, Rayiner
By Jud (IP: —.uhc.com) – Posted on 2003-11-11 14:53:02
Mr. Johnson: IAAL also. I’ve been involved in intellectual property litigation and licensing (though not for a long time), as well as contract drafting and interpretation (these latter two currently). Since the FAQ is an attempt by the folks responsible for the GPL to clarify issues associated with it, reading it is an excellent way to attempt to understand those issues, particularly for non-lawyers. Thus, regarding your “You people make me laugh” comment, I’d say the joke’s on you.
Rayiner: Electronic documents have the same legal effect as paper in many, but not all, circumstances under U.S. law. Regarding how this might bear on the FAQ and interpretation of the GPL, I must admit I don’t feel like researching the question unless someone pays me. 😉
I’m drifting offtopic here – from GPL violations and following making good for it, why this might not be worthy an answer, but since I want to know and it connects to the topic…
Steve Johnson wrote:
Electronic documents have the same legal effect as paper in many, but not all, circumstances under U.S. law.
Was that to intentionally limit the discussion to the USA, or was it (as I all too often see) a display that USians are not even aware there’s a world, around 20 times larger if counting people, outside the USA? This is not to create a holy war – I really want to know!
The reason I ask is that I find it interesting that while license disagreements often are discussed as they’re limited to only US law and the USA, the fact is that they affect the *whole world*. Any free software or open source license affect people all over the planet. The GPL is from my reading to be non-discriminating; where you live and what local law is, is of no interest. Many other (e.g. some OSI approved “Open Source”) licenses seems to be only intended for an American audience, and from my reading some of them even automatically terminate if local laws can’t uphold the retraction of rights they try to enforce (e.g. “by using this software, even if you’re not aware of its license or even its existance, constitutes acceptance of said license” might not even be legal).
The reason for this post is to hopefully get enlightenment: Do US lawyers, especially the ones writing software licenses intended for open source, consider the world outside the USA? Are they aware that some contries might not honour, or even forbid, “slave contracts” (which I consider “use this, and forever be bound by a license you might not even have been aware of”), or do they only write the licenses for a US audience to protect the a** of the one(s) ordering “yet a new license”?
Mr. Johnson: Hmm, for someone who complains that folks “do not even READ things,” you haven’t done a very careful job of reading what I said. I did *not* try to say the FAQ was legally binding. For that matter, we don’t know that the GPL itself is “legally binding,” except to the extent a court may say it is. If/when a court sits down to the task of interpreting the GPL, one of its considerations is likely to be what the GPL’s authors intended, as indicated by the FAQ and other evidence bearing on that question.
Of course the folks posting here aren’t lawyers trying to enforce the GPL in court. They are non-lawyers trying to understand the GPL’s terms, and for that purpose reading the FAQ does a pretty nice job of informing them. Just to make this perfectly clear by writing it a third time: I’m saying nothing about enforceability of the GPL (much less the FAQ). I’m saying that reading the FAQ is a good way for non-lawyers to attempt to gain an understanding of the GPL’s provisions.
One last thing: You should read the extensive literature concerning Federal (ESIGN) and state (UETA) law on the subject of online/electronic contracting before you start throwing around conclusions like “I most certainly agree that electronic documents would constitute a written offer.” I have, in order to support the rollout of online sales of a product currently owned by over 3 million people in the United States.
Anonymous: Yeah, I’m aware that the world and the Internet don’t stop at the borders of the USA. 🙂 My statement was indeed intended to limit the discussion to U.S. law, for the very good reason that I know little or nothing about foreign and international laws regarding online/electronic contracts and therefore can’t make useful statements about them in relation to the GPL or anything else.
The reason for me using the FAQ was because it pointed out the questions and answer’s to common questions about the GPL hosted and maintained and written by the creators and maintainers of the GPL the Free Software Foundation. While no the FAQ is not binding and the license is binding then maybe you would want to read this.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION, Section 3, paragraph 3 and it reads:
” If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.”
I think that handles the questions at hands on why you have to provide source via ftp if you are distributing the binaries by ftp.
Jason
I never said you had to post an iso in fact if you read my the open letter again then you will notice I said…SRPMS as well. They used to be available.
I would not be posting here but the topic on the lycoris forums where locked and this is where the conversation was carried to. If you Jason or anyone else from that neck of the woods would like to carry on this converstion feel free to email me with questions, comments, flames, etc.
Matt R. Jezorek
Linux for Education
[email protected]
RE: why
“I think that handles the questions at hands on why you have to provide source via ftp if you are distributing the binaries by ftp.”
No, it does absolutely nothing. I can’t believe this is even open to interpretation. All it says is, “offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place *counts as* distribution of the source code.” That is *one way* to fulfill your obligations to distribute the source. It represents a lesser obligation actually, because you don’t even have to succeed in distributing the code (they may not download it), and apparently you don’t even have to respond to requests for it. You also get around the 3 year rule this way. If the source was there at download time, you are DONE with your obligations. If it wasn’t, then there are other ways to fulfill your obligation, the standard one of which is to provide it upon request for a period of three years, for no more than cost. There are ambiguous portions of the GPL. This is not one of them.
Matt – I can’t believe that you actually run a Linux distro and are this malinformed. The language states that if you give a link to where you got the original code, you have fulfilled your obligations.
I’m fairly certain that you handle your own legal issues at your company, it appears you handle everything else.
Why do you harp on Lycoris if you can’t even get your facts straight? Look at the above posting – I’m not the only one who sees that you can’t get your information correct.
I’ll never use bluelinux – simply due to your poor judgement in berating other companies with false information. Your attitude is much worse than Microsoft, in my opinion. They spread FUD. You just lie, distorting your own quotes.