Inheriting or disinheriting GPL license conditions

Re: Inheriting or disinheriting GPL license conditions

Greg Soper wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I do extensive work with SugarCRM - only on the Open Source version
> of it.
> 
> SugarCRM, from Release 5.0 is GPL 3. Previous releases were the Sugar
>  Public License (SPL) which was essentially GPL2 with attribution
> clauses and was not recognised by OSI.

At least the latest SPL was definitely MPL + attribution
(http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/SPL).  There's a huge difference between
GPL2 and MPL, disregarding for a moment the "attribution" issues.

> If I remember correctly from a seminar I attended a couple or ten
> years ago .... if you modify and distribute GPL2 code, the whole code
> base is covered by GPL2 ... the changes inherit the GPL2 license
> conditions.

That's correct, but again SPL was based on MPL.  MPL is a "weaker"
copyleft.  It says "Any new file /that contains any part of the Original
Code/ or previous Modifications." [must be put under MPL]. So a totally
new file does /not/ have to be put under MPL.

You should also note that MPL is not compatible with GPL2 or GPL3.

Matt Flaschen

GPL license in PHP

Re: Inheriting or disinheriting GPL license conditions

Hi Greg,

I've not researched sugarCRM at all; I've a few questions you quite 
probably know the answers to:

Greg Soper wrote:

[snip]
> However, the vendor also distributes an "on-premise" or physical version 
> of the modified application. This on-premise version is covered by a 
> proprietary license that forbids distribution of any vendor written 
> code, but allows distribution of the original SugarCRM written code.

There's presumably no argument that this is distribution.

I'd imagine any points that are debatable will be how much of the 
vendor's written code is a "derived work" of the GPL code.

It's not too clear from your email; do you believe that the vendor has 
modified some of the files provided by SugarCRM? Are they allowing their 
customers to distribute *those* modified files under the GPL, or only 
the original versions without the vendors changes?

Are some of the vendor's modification viewed as "plugins"? Is there a 
defined plugin interface? It is clear if you can license sugarCRM under 
any license you want? Do any of their 'plugins' incorporate GPL licensed 
code?

Do you (or your company) own the copyright to some of the GPL code in 
sugarCRM? (Your sig suggests you may be a contributor.)

Did the vendor contribute any of the code in the open source GPL version 
of sugarCRM?

Joseph

Re: Gira Homeserver GPL Violation

Uhh, anything new?

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:16 PM, David Kraeutmann <david <at> davidkra.net> wrote:
> Yes, I contacted them two times, the first time they answered that
> they will include a GPL notice with every Homeserver and firmware
> package. After that I wrote them that they also need to release the
> source code of the GPL'd projects; they didn't answer on that message.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Craig Whitmore <lennon <at> orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 07:13 +0100, David Kraeutmann wrote:
>>> http://www.gira.de/download/index.html?id=1043
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> I found out that the Gira Homeserver firmware violates the GPL: it
>>> uses at least the Linux Kernel and Busybox and provides a GPL notice,
>>> but no source code is available.
>>
>>> Gira's website: http://www.gira.de
>>> Homeserver Firmware download: >
>>> http://www.gira.de/download/index.html?id=1043
>>
>> And what do they say about it? have you contacted them?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

E-Lead EL-460 might violates GPL

Hello,
     I'd like to ask for the process of issuing a GPL violation,
because I found a product which might violated GPL or LGPL.
     I found that E-Lead [1] EL-460 [2] (a net-top) preinstalled
GNU/Linux (which is based on Ubuntu) has some modified packages which
is to cooperate with its proprietary program called Noahpad. Noahpad
is used to display the status of the special touchpad-keyboard. E-Lead
modified SCIM [3], which it is LGPL licensed, in order to show
different soft-keyboards for different input methods on the screen,
but I cannot get the source code neither of SCIM nor of Noahpad.
     It is possible that the program also violates GPL because of the
inheritance of Linux kernel and some part of GPL-ed programs.
     Months ago, I've mailed them for the source code of SCIM and
Noahpad, but they have no reply at all; maybe they didn't receive the
mail at all.
     Should I contact them in other methods? or what's the next step I
have to take?

[1] http://www.e-lead.com.tw/Engweb/index.asp
[2] http://www.noahpad.com/
[3] http://www.scim-im.org/

Thanks,
Ming-Ting Wei/Medical-Wei

Re: E-Lead EL-460 might violates GPL

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:51 AM, 魏藥/Medical-Wei <medicalwei <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>     I'd like to ask for the process of issuing a GPL violation,
> because I found a product which might violated GPL or LGPL.
>     I found that E-Lead [1] EL-460 [2] (a net-top) preinstalled
> GNU/Linux (which is based on Ubuntu) has some modified packages which
> is to cooperate with its proprietary program called Noahpad. Noahpad
> is used to display the status of the special touchpad-keyboard. E-Lead
> modified SCIM [3], which it is LGPL licensed, in order to show
> different soft-keyboards for different input methods on the screen,
> but I cannot get the source code neither of SCIM nor of Noahpad.
>     It is possible that the program also violates GPL because of the
> inheritance of Linux kernel and some part of GPL-ed programs.
>     Months ago, I've mailed them for the source code of SCIM and
> Noahpad, but they have no reply at all; maybe they didn't receive the
> mail at all.
>     Should I contact them in other methods? or what's the next step I
> have to take?
>
> [1] http://www.e-lead.com.tw/Engweb/index.asp
> [2] http://www.noahpad.com/
> [3] http://www.scim-im.org/

  This sort of request comes up often on this list.  IMHO, the best
course of action is to contact the authors of the application as well
as the offenders together.  We, as users of GPL software, I do not
believe have a legal right to demand the source, merely to request it.
 If they do not provide the source, they are then in violation, and
have no valid license.  However, they are now in violation of the
authors rights, and not ours.

  I believe this is one of the reasons why it is helpfull to actually
assign rights to the FSF.  By assigning rights to the FSF, the author
gives the FSF the legal right to pursue violations.  Comments?

--

-- 
-- Thomas

Re: Gira Homeserver GPL Violation

You tell us? This is a volunteer based community, you should follow up
with the company your self. Contact busybox and see what they have to
say.

Cheers,

Alan

2009/1/18 David Kraeutmann <david <at> davidkra.net>:
> Uhh, anything new?
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:16 PM, David Kraeutmann <david <at> davidkra.net> wrote:
>> Yes, I contacted them two times, the first time they answered that
>> they will include a GPL notice with every Homeserver and firmware
>> package. After that I wrote them that they also need to release the
>> source code of the GPL'd projects; they didn't answer on that message.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Craig Whitmore <lennon <at> orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 07:13 +0100, David Kraeutmann wrote:
>>>> http://www.gira.de/download/index.html?id=1043
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>> I found out that the Gira Homeserver firmware violates the GPL: it
>>>> uses at least the Linux Kernel and Busybox and provides a GPL notice,
>>>> but no source code is available.
>>>
>>>> Gira's website: http://www.gira.de
>>>> Homeserver Firmware download: >
>>>> http://www.gira.de/download/index.html?id=1043
>>>
>>> And what do they say about it? have you contacted them?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>