Slashdot Mirror

Maybe it's because the GPL only stipulates that the code needs to be availabe upon request?

Besides, Palm did provide the source, the FSF simply couldn't be bothered to look (or ask):

http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/documentserver.tar.gz

Derivative works are perfectly fine under Copyright law as long as the new work is sufficiently original and adds enough value to the old (note that these are very subjective qualifications). If they add little or nothing meaningful of their own to the work then it would certainly be in violation of Copyright law.

However, it seems to me that a linked library would have to be significantly more substantial than the app that calls it in order for this to be the case, even if the application were specifically built around using the library. If they designed it such that they could easilly swap out a different library, it's obviously not derivative, and the library is simply used to enhance their own original code. That case tends to fall under fair use, and if fair use applies then the GPL doesn't.

Also, regarding linking and the GPL, Copyright is all about distribution - I can write whatever the hell I want based on whatever the hell I want, and if I never distribute any copyrighted material I am never in violation of copyright. Period. The GPL does not magically turn what I write into what somebody else wrote, and therefore distributing what I myself wrote violates Copyright. If all I am doing is linking libraries (which are copyrighted) and I never distribute those libraries, it is not possible for me to ever be in violation of the copyright on those libraries. It does not matter where I got the inspiration for the code, what calls I make, any of it. The I wrote is my code to do with as I please. If I want to distribute a version of my code that does not include the GPL'd libraries, there is nothing the GPL can do to force me to GPL my code. They did not write it, I am not distributing their code, they cannot dictate what I do with it. It's not a EULA, it's a Copyright license. Copyright deals with, say it with me now, COPYING. If I don't copy their code, I don't require their license.

In fact, if I am simply calling a function within a GPL'd library a few times, and it is not intrinsicly vital to my own code (perhaps it is a better and more convenient implimentation, but I have a function that works if the library is not available), I could probably still distribute the GPL'd code without distributing mine as GPL under fair use. That's a much more subjective case, and a determination of just HOW derivative a work is would be required. At the very least, as anal and intolerant as the FSF is, it would probably ending up costing a ton of money in court fees, and I don't have the money to go up against an organization like the FSF.

Frankly, in my opinion the GNU GPL is coercive and disgusting, and I think it goes far beyond what it should. The idea, of course, is to force everyone to give their code away for free even if they don't want to. I find this attitude offensive (less the free, and more the forcing). I only have a few documentaries on the history of Linux to base this on, but based on those I think Stallman himself is a man with no class. I know his type, they tend to believe everyone should be free, even if they have to force you. Can you see the hippocracy there? Anyway, I'm rambling, turns out this is a hotbutton issue for me - who knew?

Finally, Palm did distribute the source for PDFViewer, as per the GPL requirements - the FSF are just assholes who couldn't be bothered to do more than a cursory check to see if there was something they could sue for.

As others have been saying, the GPL is a distribution license, not a usage license. Usage licenses are shaky anyway, whereas distribution licenses are pretty solid.

If you distribute no GPL code - i.e. your code does nothing but call a dynamically linked library, and you therefore don't distribute that library - then you are not bound by GPL. Period.

However, you had better be absolutely certain that your target will have the necessary libraries, or your app could be a brick.

If you then decide to distribute the GPL'd library with your app to provide compatibility, then because your app uses the GPL'd code and you distributed that GPL'd code, your application is subject to the terms of the GPL (that's what gives you the right to distribute the library in the first place).

In most practical cases, unless you are writing code for a specific release of a specific distribution and can be absolutely certain that a given library will be available, even dynamically linking libraries won't save you from having to GPL your code.

It's all moot though, as it relates to Palm, because they did make the PDFViewer app's code available here, as per GPL requirements, and if Stallman and the "Free" Software Foundation weren't so anal about forcing everyone into their view of the world they may have realized that Palm distributed tons of code for the Pre, and if the PDFViewer code was missing it was probably just in an obscure place or it was an oversight.

If the FSF seriously pushes this they are going to get their asses handed to them in court, and possibly face countersuit for filing such a frivolous lawsuit. Frankly, they deserve it.

That could be why Palm made all of the source for the viewer app available here for anybody to download.

You can even jump back to the index and get all the rest of the Palm Pre's source code.

What this proves is that the link libraries were intended to be the GPL versions all along, and the executed code on the smartphone was therefore created to be a derived work of these particular GPL libraries. And since those libraries are being distributed with the hardware...

That's very true, that could be why they chose to make the full source code for the PDFViewer app here:

http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/documentserver.tar.gz

Where's that violation? Perhaps it is because PDFViewer uses LGPL instead of GPL - the thing is LGPL has a clause that essentially turns it into GPL when such a case arises (using GPL code in an LGPL app). Some confusion, I think, but it looks to me like the muPDF guys and FSF have seriously jumped the gun. FSF seems to be getting trigger happy, probably Stalman is still bitter about Linux being out for decades while he still doesn't have a reliable Hurd (but that's just conjecture).

Did they bother to call Palm and say "Hey, you guys used our code and didn't distribute the source for yours" and give Palm an opportunity to say "Uhhh... dumbasses, yeah we did"?

http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html

This is not rocket science to find, VG. Upon hearing of an accusation, you really should not take it with face value until you examine it directly. Even if said accusation was wrapped in a lawsuit from a prissy developer.

muPDF is available from Palm's site, both as original and as their patches. Here are URL's for each:

http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz

This news made the rounds last week, and it's entirely possible that those are recent additions. Unless you think that either (1) there are more modifications not listed, or (2) that the court should impose punative damages on what was almost certainly an oversight, this matter is settled.

http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html

This is not rocket science to find, VG. Upon hearing of an accusation, you really should not take it with face value until you examine it directly. Even if said accusation was wrapped in a lawsuit from a prissy developer.

muPDF is available from Palm's site, both as original and as their patches. Here are URL's for each:

http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz

This news made the rounds last week, and it's entirely possible that those are recent additions. Unless you think that either (1) there are more modifications not listed, or (2) that the court should impose punative damages on what was almost certainly an oversight, this matter is settled.

http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz

http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz

What about http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/documentserver.tar.gz ?

$ ls -1 documentserver/
COPYING-LGPL2.1.txt
debug-x86-org
documentserver
include
lib
Makefile
mustd.h
PDF.cpp
PDF.h
PDFOutline.cpp
PDFOutline.h
PDFPage.cpp
PDFPage.h
PDFRenderer.cpp
PDFRenderer.h
PDFService.cpp
PDFViewer.cpp
PDFViewer.h
Search.cpp
Search.h

http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz

(info from post #30349382)

http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz

(info from post #30349382)