BeOS Boo-Boo: Violating The GPL -- Updated

Bruce Perens writes "Be is violating the GPL on my software. While it's something they can easily fix, it's a good example of why people need to keep track of where the software they are using came from, and what license is applied to it. We've got the full story over on Technocrat.net." Updated 23:15GMT by timothy: Thanks to reader Eugenia Loli, who wrote: "Andrew Kimpton from Be, was on the phone with Bruce Perens earlier, and Be is clearing up the issue once and for good! Please read the important update."

Comments

Re:How do you know?

[Matts]

Have you checked out TECHNOCRAT.NET

How can we? You use Zope. Telnets get through, pings get through. The only damn thing that won't go through is HTTP. Perhaps you should investigate a more scale-able solution? ;-)

Re:If it is unintentional....

[Bruce Perens]

No, I submitted it. It's a warning to others to be more careful.

Thanks

Bruce

The inconsistencies of Open Source Dogma.

[FallLine]

It is fundamentally inconsistent of the Open Source community to claim that:

a) Open source is the best. That it always more bug free than closed source. That it is more innovative than closed source. That it provides better support. etc. etc. etc.

b) Closed source (propietary software) freeloading of Open Source code represents a large and significant threat to the movement.

If Open Source is so great, why worry about propietary efforts? If a company comes along and merely extends Open source software, why should this be a great concern to Open Source advocates? If these advocates are to be believed, there is no way that propietary extension could be better (ultimately). What rational person would pay money for an inferior value? [By value I mean, not only how the software in and of itself performs, but its support, and the extent to which moving to or from it actually benefits the user in real life] So why worry?

It would seem to me that these people, who want to assert both "A" and "B", are either blind followers or they understand on some level that propietary software offers some significant benefit over and above what that same open source effort offers. Bruce Perens is particularly aggregigious here in my opinion. In some ways, I can respect RMS more here (even though I have the least in common with him). I've never heard him purport Open source per se to be the best thing since sliced bread. His objections to propietary software is based on "moral grounds", so he can object to propietary freeloading relatively consistently. This is simply not true of the vast remainder of the Open Source camp.

While it is Perens' right try to stop Be from "freeloading," I think he is wrong. I question his motives. I question his thought process, and I question this slashdot public opinion, which is best described as an avalanche. Furthermore, it seems to me that many (but not all, I realize) Open source zealots want to have their copyrights and burn them too. They want the right to freeload music, but don't want software companies to freeload from them....

I believe Open Source offers some significant advantages to propietary software, but is not black and white. When I see anyone painting with such broadstrokes, I'll question them. If I get flamed, and modded down to -43423 so be it, such is the price for honesty.

Re:A question first...

[orpheus]

I have read many discussions of this passage, by people whose opinions I respect. However, I am not quite sure I accept the 'viral' interpretation of this condition, and alas, the courts have not ruled on it.

I respectfully submit my objections for comment.

*IF* I linked a proprietary program to a GPL library, *and* I were hauled into court, I think it would be relatively easy to demonstrate that my whole program didn't fall under GPL.

1) Write a small program that links a GPL library. [or write your own demo library and GPL it]

2) Write an alternate non-GPL library (same functions, different code) to show that a program simply requires *a* library with the correct functions, not any specific library, and hence not the GPL'ed library in question.

3) Since a calling program can run with any library containing the correct functions, then calling programs are an "identifiable section of that work" that is "not derived from the Program" (capital-P Program, meaning the GPL'd library, quoting the GPL itself) "and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves"

4) Some will argue that my program isn't a 'separate work' if distributed together with the GPL library, but proprietary software can co-exist on the same CD as GPL software, and still be proprietary even if the proprietary software requires the GPL software to run! Corel ships its Linux software with a Linux distro. That Corel software won't run without Linux. Does that make Corel automatically GPL?

In other words: if I ship Fords with Michellin GPL tires, I don't GPL my Fords, because they could also use (in theory) Goodyears. If the Michellin GPL tire had a *patented* feature that my Fords needed, then it would be an entirely different matter, because Goodyear would be precluded from making such tires. Copyrights, unlike patents don't preclude you from "rolling your own".

This is simply a demonstration of principle. I don't actually need to write any more libraries, as long as programs are independent in principle.

Look at the other side: If I have a GPL program that calls a PROPRIETARY library, I obviously have no right to pull that library into GPL -- and there is nothing to keep me from making my program GPL. The library is independent of the program, and can be used in many programs, even if it can't 'run' by itself. Similarly a program could run with an alternate library, and is independent.

Note: some may consider this a bug, but it's there in the language of the GPL. Proprietary licenses for library code apply different restrictions.

Submitted in response to:

It is in condition #2 of the GPL, which reads (in part): "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."

__________

Lord Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord Stallman, I await thy orders on when to begin the BEos inquisition. I have several hundrd GNU warriors armed and ready. We have secured yaks to carry us into battle.

Know this, O' Lord Stallman, ye who hath given the world this wondrous tool called GPL, know that we will lay our lives down to protect the integrity of Copyleft. For what kind of man would live in a world where Copyleft was not protected. Show me such a man and I will show you that the Earth is round !!!

Hark, my warriors. Let us rejoice in what we are about to do. May the next battle take us to the BSD infidels. I would love nothing more than to excise that Devil Theo from this world and send him and his fellow savages to Hades !!!

Re:If it is unintentional....

[Otter]

It's a warning to others to be more careful.

The warning I would take away from this is:

So your company is thinking about using the GPL, or GPL'd software? Well, think twice, because if you do anything that could be construed as a violation, even if it's clearly unintentional, it is going to be met with a public smear campaign without first giving you a chance to address it.

I've heard from Be

[Bruce Perens]

I've heard from Be. They will solve the problem. They will be more careful in the future.

There is some software already going to the CD-presser and the retail channel, and I asked their attorney to write a release that will let them continue to distribute that. I will sign it.

I would not have put this in the public eye except that it's something that people have to be more careful about - be sure you know whose software you are using and what license it has - you ignore that at your peril. Thus, I publicized this example.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:I've heard from Be

[ashpool7]

I would not have put this in the public eye except that it's something that people have to be more careful about . . . . . Thus, I publicized this example.

Nobody is denying that it should be publicly advertized that Be messed this up. What slashdotters want to know is why you publicised now instead of later (after you settled it with Be).

Re:I've heard from Be

[ashpool7]

... I ment "settle" as in "resolve the problem".

I think I understand why you posted this now . . . "Be fixes GPL Violation" would attract less readers than "Be Violates GPL". If your intent was to warn GPL developers of danger and alert them to checking licences, etc, then gaining maximum readership was definately obtained.

However, in the process of trying to get everyone to look, you've smeared Be. Yes, you cleaned up by posting that Be is fixing the problem, but you still smeared them.

My thoughts on the matter is that you could have gotten away with a minimal loss of readership if you hadn't smeared them in the first place (posting after word from Be).

I notice Technocrat now has an updated headline on the article to reduce Be smear. I find it very odd. First it's "BeOS Boo-Boo: Violating the GPL" and now it's "BeOS Boo-Boo: GPL violated, They'll Fix It". The first title sounds like you want to roast Be on a spit and the second sounds like a informational post.

To the critical reader, this looks like you smeared Be to further your point and now you want to clean up and and forget you smeared them. It looks like you're trying to manuplate the fact that you originally smeared them.

Thats a Boo-Boo.

I'm not intentionally trying to smear you here, I'm just pointing out whats going on. If more data is forthcoming . . . I'll post a followup. :)

Re:No kidding

[Bruce Perens]

OK, you have a point. I could have handled it more gently.

Bruce

Re:How do you know?

[Bruce Perens]

My copyright string is embedded in their software, with my name in it.

Re:If it is unintentional....

[deeny]

...wouldn't community relations have been better served by a private email to the Be engineers?

Bingo. A lot of the Be folk are just as much friends of open source as anyone. The choice to work at a proprietary OS company is something that I *can* understand, even if Bruce and RMS can't. Be's offices have a vitality and energy (not to mention a whole bunch of old hardware) that I haven't seen often.

I don't see why Bruce had to draw attention to what he already believes is a simple, honest mistake. It would have been more professional to deal with it privately and only make it a community issue if Be ignored him or refused to fix the problem.

I agree. I doubt they would have ignored him or refused to fix the problem, but I'd be willing to bet that they may re-engineer it not to use his code.

_Deirdre

No kidding

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

To sum up:

1) Be made mistake.
2) You found the mistake and
a) posted it on your news site
b) posted it on another news site known for it's hasty reactions
c) THEN contacted BeOS to get more information
3) Someone questioned whether you ought to contact Be
4) You claimed you "made it clear" that you had contacted Be
5) When someone notes that you didn't "make it clear" you admit you hadn't mentioned that when you posted the story

I think the REAL point here is that you haven't read the Advocacy-HOWTO.

Free Software is about love (i.e. sharing) or, at worst, tough love (I'll play nice with you if you play nice with me). All you've done is instill fear in current and future GPL users. They'll be careful all right--careful to avoid the GPL.
--

Where's the other half of this story?

[kmcardle]

Wouldn't it have been better to work this out with Be in private and then post it on the net?

You have every right to protect your rights, and I encourage you to do so, but you don't have to knock Be down to do it. Both of you could have come out looking better if this was resolved before it was common public knowledge.
--

Affirmation of Open Source Commandments?

[sugarman]

So, a month ago, when Be had a small user base, and of those not a lot where looking in depth at what was contained in all the libs (okay, at least I wasn't, not sure about all the others).

Now, Free Be has had 700,000+ downloads, many of them Linux users who are trying the OS for the first time, and some inconsistencies come to light. So as the OSS zelaots preach: "With many eyes, all bugs are shallow."

I imagine that Bruce is correct: this was likely unintentional. I also imagine that there may be more instances of this withing Be's libs. I mean, iut is a versatile, Posix compliant OS, so there could be a number of other apps being used in the same way.

I guess a more thorough audit of what actually is included in BeOS may be necessary, at least by someone who knows what to look for. I'm sure that whatever conflicts arise could be corrected in short order, but I'd hate to see my fave OS get caught up in licensing hell.

Violation of GPL

[awk2]

I've just spoken with Bruce Perens, and acknowledged that we at Be have indeed 'boo-booed' with our use of Electric Fence in libroot.so.

We're working to remove Electric Fence from libroot.so and to place it in a statically linked library that can be linked against when-ever needed (typically for debugging). We'll then also distribute the full-source to the static library.

Our plan is to complete this by the end of the week and to update the downloadable package from free.be.com and also to include the updates in future revisions of BeOS Pro.

Andrew Kimpton
Be Inc.

If it is unintentional....

[DanaL]

...wouldn't community relations have been better served by a private email to the Be engineers?

As has happened in similar cases (I'm thinking Corel's gafs), Be will probably recieve a LOT of angry/nasty/rude email from some of the more fanatic GPL/Linux advocates.

I don't see why Bruce had to draw attention to what he already believes is a simple, honest mistake. It would have been more professional to deal with it privately and only make it a community issue if Be ignored him or refused to fix the problem.

Dana