headers
C. Grobmeier | 10 Sep 2006 12:25
Picon

XTCommerce Violation?


Hello all,

i have a question about the mentioned project.
In the GPL is written:

"But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the
GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
program's users, under the GPL."

The project has it's software licensed under the GPL. They sell support
for 98 Euro. If you don't buy the support, you cannot download the
software package nor the sourcecode.

I have asked the support, they think they are correct with this
handling. I think they are not, cause they distribute the software
"public in some way" and don't use it internally in their organization.

Can you enlighten me? :-)
Regards,
Christian
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Arnoud Engelfriet | 10 Sep 2006 18:41
Gravatar

Re: XTCommerce Violation?

C. Grobmeier wrote:
> The project has it's software licensed under the GPL. They sell support
> for 98 Euro. If you don't buy the support, you cannot download the
> software package nor the sourcecode.

That's fine. Only those people who receive binaries have the
right to also obtain the source. If they give away binaries
and charge EUR 98 for source, that would be a different thing.

> I have asked the support, they think they are correct with this
> handling. I think they are not, cause they distribute the software
> "public in some way" and don't use it internally in their organization.

Basically, if I give GPL software to my neighbor, he can ask me
to also give him the source. But *you* cannot ask me for the
source, because you are not my neighbor and I never gave you
GPL'ed binaries. There is no requirement to give source to
*everyone* just because you give a binary to *someone*.

The GPL FAQ says about this issue:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIDemandACopy

Arnoud

--

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Matthew Flaschen | 10 Sep 2006 20:08
Picon

Re: XTCommerce Violation?

Wait, this issue is a little more complex than that.  If the company 
distributes the source with the binaries, Arnoud is correct.  However, 
if they distribute the binaries without source, they must "Accompany it 
[the binaries] 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."  Note that the offer must be valid for third 
parties (who need not have received binaries, or in this case purchases 
support).

It's not really clear from the description whether source and binaries 
are being distributed together, or whether there's a written offer 
(perhaps more implicit than it should be).

Matt Flaschen

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> C. Grobmeier wrote:
>> The project has it's software licensed under the GPL. They sell support
>> for 98 Euro. If you don't buy the support, you cannot download the
>> software package nor the sourcecode.
> 
> That's fine. Only those people who receive binaries have the
> right to also obtain the source. If they give away binaries
> and charge EUR 98 for source, that would be a different thing.
> 
>> I have asked the support, they think they are correct with this
>> handling. I think they are not, cause they distribute the software
>> "public in some way" and don't use it internally in their organization.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ingbert Grimpe | 11 Sep 2006 12:14
Picon

Re: XTCommerce Violation?

I'm not extremely happy with their (= xt:Commerce GbR) handling of the 
GPL, but I doubt that they violate it (the GPL this is).
They do offer the complete package (including the GPL) to subscribers of 
their support-service, but do not make the download available for 
everyone -> fine I guess.

I do object that they are trying to force others, NOT to make the 
package available to everyone. Unfortunately they do not do this 
officially and basically they use their rights regarding the name 
"xt-Commerce". To be safe I'd rather change the name of the software 
than to risk legal trouble.

Anyway. There ARE sources for downloading the xt:Commerce package from 
other sources, though they are not easy to find as I have to admit.

Regards,
Ingbert
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Florian Fainelli | 11 Sep 2006 15:55
Picon

Colubris violation

Hi all,

Recently, an OpenWrt user on the forum posted he wanted to see his Colubris 
CN-1000 (Office Wireless Access Point) running Linux.

You can follow the thread to know about hardware specifications : 
http://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=3010

I wait for him in order to know if he had access to the sources on request, 
because Colubris does not publish source code as far as I know.

Can we consider this as a GPL violation, or is this manufacturer under special 
laws (due to its originating country or whatever) regarding GPL ?

Thanks in advance for your answer.
--

-- 
Cordialement, Florian Fainelli
---------------------------------------------
5, rue Charles Fourier
Chambre 1202
91011 Evry
http://www.alphacore.net
(+33) 01 60 76 64 21
(+33) 06 09 02 64 95
---------------------------------------------
Association MiNET
http://www.minet.net
---------------------------------------------
Institut National des Télécommunications
http://www.int-evry.fr/telecomint
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Matthew Flaschen | 11 Sep 2006 16:01
Picon
Favicon

Re: Colubris violation

If they're using any form of the Linux kernel (as the forum indicates), 
they must make available source code.  The Linux kernel is only 
available under the GPL; this means redistribution of the code, modified 
or unmodified, is only allowed with source.

If they truly aren't providing source (or a written offer for it), then 
this is indeed a violation.  I have not verified this.

Matt Flaschen

Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Recently, an OpenWrt user on the forum posted he wanted to see his Colubris 
> CN-1000 (Office Wireless Access Point) running Linux.
> 
> You can follow the thread to know about hardware specifications : 
> http://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=3010
> 
> I wait for him in order to know if he had access to the sources on request, 
> because Colubris does not publish source code as far as I know.
> 
> Can we consider this as a GPL violation, or is this manufacturer under special 
> laws (due to its originating country or whatever) regarding GPL ?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your answer.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Florian Fainelli | 11 Sep 2006 16:03
Picon

Yet another Broadcom 63xx manufacturer potentially violating GPL

Hi all,

Recently, I was given a Broadcom  63xx based xDSL/Wireless Access Point/Router 
manufacturer by Huawei. The exact model is Huawei HG-550 and this device is 
running Linux.

I wrote to Huawei France asking them for sources, or at least understand why 
they don't publish them and am still waiting for an answer.

This device is widely used by a french ISP named Neuf/Cegetel, and is called 
the "Neuf box". I know that previous experiences with such GPL violations in 
France (Proxad and its Freebox at least) canceled GPL infrignments. So that 
we cannot expect from Neuf/Cegetel access to the sources since they have to 
protect their network infrastructure by not giving access to the software 
sources.

As this company is an international one, and France is not its unique market, 
should we consider Huawei is violating GPL ?

Thanks a lot in advance for your answer.
--  
Cordialement, Florian Fainelli
---------------------------------------------
5, rue Charles Fourier
Chambre 1202
91011 Evry
http://www.alphacore.net
(+33) 01 60 76 64 21
(+33) 06 09 02 64 95
---------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Zibri | 11 Sep 2006 16:21
Picon

Still no replies from TELSEY (.it AND .com)


This email is just to inform you all that TELSEY did not reply to any
further emails from me about releasing the source codes...

For who among you who didn't follow the story, TELSEY is using GPLed
software in almost all their products...

TELSEY "MAGIC" for example is a BROADCOM (brcm 96348) based ADSL2+ wifi
router that uses LINUX as operating system,

Here is the output coming from the internal TTL serial port:

 Booting from latest image (0xc0000000) ...
Code Address: 0x80010000, Entry Address: 0x80199018
Decompression OK!
Entry at 0x80199018
Closing network.
Starting program at 0x80199018
Linux version 2.6.8.1 (carpao <at> Carpao_lab) (gcc version 3.4.2) #1 Wed Dec 21
12:40:40 CET 2005
Parallel flash device: name MX29LV640T, id 0x22c9, size 8192KB
Total Flash size: 8192K with 135 sectors
MAGIC prom init
CPU revision is: 00029107
Determined physical RAM map:
 memory: 00fa0000  <at>  00000000 (usable)
On node 0 totalpages: 4000
  DMA zone: 4000 pages, LIFO batch:1
  Normal zone: 0 pages, LIFO batch:1
  HighMem zone: 0 pages, LIFO batch:1
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Matthew Flaschen | 11 Sep 2006 16:29
Picon
Favicon

Re: Yet another Broadcom 63xx manufacturer potentially violating GPL

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but I was around for one of these discussions 
(Freebox, I think).  If I recall, their defense was not that they had to 
protect their network.  Rather, they claimed they maintained ownership 
of the boxes, and were only placing them at the client sites.  This 
seemed dubious to me, because IIRC they were not charging rental fees, 
but rather just the ordinary setup costs.

Anyway, "protecting your network infrastructure" alone is certainly not 
enough reason to fail to distribute source along with GPL code.  As the 
GPL puts it "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously 
your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, 
then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."

Matt Flaschen

Florian Fainelli wrote:
 > So that
> we cannot expect from Neuf/Cegetel access to the sources since they have to 
> protect their network infrastructure by not giving access to the software 
> sources.
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Matthew Flaschen | 12 Sep 2006 00:39
Picon
Favicon

Re: Colubris violation

They have to release the GPL components, and this includes any 
derivative works of the GPL components (which they must license under 
the GPL).  What counts as a derivative work is unfortunately hard to 
decide.  I couldn't say in this case.

Matt Flaschen

Nathan Sullivan wrote:
> I have received source code from Colubris Networks for some of their 
> access points recently. They give a written offer for GPL source in 
> their terms and conditions included with all access points. I contacted 
> the local sales rep in Australia, It took a few requests to chase them 
> up, and about 3 months to get a result, as well as a "firm" email at the 
> end to get it :) but in the end they gave me an ISO. One thing im unsure 
> of, they are only required to release the GPL components of their 
> firmware, correct? They have a proprietary firmware format with the 
> extension .cim, and they dont include any cim handler utilities with the 
> ISO, as this format is their own this wouldnt be breaching GPL correct?
> 
> Nathan.
> 
> On 9/12/06, *Matthew Flaschen* <matthew.flaschen <at> gatech.edu 
> <mailto:matthew.flaschen <at> gatech.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     If they're using any form of the Linux kernel (as the forum indicates),
>     they must make available source code.  The Linux kernel is only
>     available under the GPL; this means redistribution of the code, modified
>     or unmodified, is only allowed with source.
> 
>     If they truly aren't providing source (or a written offer for it), then
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane