Slashdot Mirror
NuSphere vs. MySQL AB Hearing
An anonymous submitter sent in: "The hearing is over, and Adam Kessel posted a report about what happened in the court room. The judge is probably not going to issue a temp. injunction against NuSphere on the GPL violation, but probably WILL issue an injunction on trademark issues." Politech has another report on the hearing.
Here's some background: Boston judge to hear first test of GNU license used in MySQL and NuSphere replies to Politech post about FSF and Boston lawsuit. Looks like the GPL isn't an issue here after all -- in other words, it may just be a run-of-the-mill contract dispute between two parties.
Also the judge didn't want to get into the technicalities as they were way beyond her at this point.
MySQL wins on the trademark count (for now at least), but the motion on the GPL violation is being pushed to August.
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
Thought a link to the actual GPL might be helpful. Here it is. My (limited) understanding is that NuSphere released a product statically linked to MySQL, but did not release the software under GPL and therefore violated GPL.
Nusphere fixed the basic issue here; they no longer distribute without source code.
MySQLs actions make little sense, they are acting like spoiled children who didn't get their way. (Incomprehensible to me; I think an ego clash occured)
MySQL can't claim damages with regard to the GPL because there aren't any. If you look at the information released the other day you'll note near the end (EFF statement) That Nusphere fixed the problem; That EFF encourages compliance, not court action; and the short acknolwedgement that they believe Nusphere violated the license.
You would note near the beginning they state the purpose of the GPL and their general intent to reach a compliance.
IMO, this is a very nasty detail that's left hanging in the license, and should be fixed in the next version. If nothing else, the license should explicitly say that you lose all rights to use the software "until you are granted explicit permission, in writing, by the original author", or something similar.
I like that part about how everyone should sign their code over to the FSF so that it could be defended by an organization with money. Is this their only purpose of existence? Beware of your friends when lots of money is involved.
It seems there is a desperate need for some tech savvy judges. Perhaps a "Court of Technology" should be established.
The current system seems kinda like slashdotters passing judgement on the latest fashions from Paris.
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
The judge seemed to weigh that putting NuSphere out of business was a big deal in the "balance of harms" and didn't see clearly what the "irreperable injury" the other way was. As Jack Valenti would say, if Nusphere has based their business model on piracy, then they should be imprisoned, not just slapped with an injunction.
The GPL is not a gift. It is a barter offer: I allow certain carefully constrained uses of my IP and in return you offer any intellectual property you create some as a result of my good will back to "the pot". In software development, time is a critical element: if one competitor can benefit from the IP of the other and mix in its own IP without disclosure, then the cheater has gained an unfair advantage. If its cheating is part of a business venture, then its entire profit stream is usurped from the good faith party as a direct result of its bad faith dealings.
For this reason the GPL essentially says "if you ever cheat, you get the death penalty". Without this clause, freeloaders could perpetually use gamesmanship and delaying tactics to obtain competitive advantage in the bartering of "hot" IP. To assure that bad faith cannot usurp the original author's valuable IP contributions, the GPL revokes all rights for the smallest infraction in order to assure that any "negotiation" will occur with the position of strength emphatically given to the original author.
The irreparable harm inflicted by not issuing an injunction is that NuSphere can continue to profit from a business model that is based on outright theft of intellectual property. The moment they were notified of GPL noncompliance, section 4 of the GPL revoked their licence. They are distributing and indeed modifying a copyrighted work in direct defiance of the authority of the copyright holder with the intent to profit. That is not only irreperable harm, it is stealing, and it is CRIMINAL if it is done willfully (17 USC 504).
The GPL is a distribution license; it gives the licensee rights that they would normally not have, namely to distribute the code. By violating the GPL, NuSphere lost these rights, and until the copyright owner decides to give it to them again, they cannot distribute the code. This is the main argument, and it's validity may be decided by the court case.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(1) NuSphere probably figured they could probably violate the GPL and MySQL would not have the resources to sue them. This is probably true of most free software developers who have not assigned their copyrights to the FSF. After watching this hearing, it seems to me imperative that developers assign their copyrights to some party that will have the resources to enforce it (whether the FSF or some other organization). These violations can only become more common as GPL software becomes more powerful and widespread, and it is quite expensive to litigate against them.
Uh, say what? Does he mean that the FSF has no legal right to assist another party monetarily in courst unless the FSF has the assigned copyright? I somehow don't think legal rules are that restrictive. I read that as, "if you don't give your code to us (the "free" world)", we don't care spit about you if someone hijacks it, GPL or no."
Please tell me I missed something here...
I'm a bit vague now on GPL and LGPL for static vs dynamic linking. Let me note that NuSphere makes themselves sound crooked when they claim that a mail client connecting to a GPL'd mail server would be polluted. That's absurd.
So, I've always gathered that the LGPL exists to permit a program to link to libraries - but my impression was that the LGPL was phrased such that code could statically link to it -- such that the result would be a single executable, and that even under the GPL, it was legally permissible to write code that would rely upon a dynamically loaded library. Can someone confirm this is the case? IE, you could write a program which required that a person have libmysqlclient.so* installed for dynamic loading and that program could be closed source, but you could NOT produce an executable which statically linked that into the executable unless libmysqlclient.so was distributed under the LGPL (which, of course, it is not).
Kessel is exactly right: you cannot sue on someone else's behalf. So FSF cannot, for example, sue NuSphere on MySQL AB's behalf. (They can, however, testify as an expert witness). That is the reason FSF requests the assignment of copyright, contrary to what certain trolls claim.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
NuSphere is purposefully trying to confuse the issue with their code linking argument. The copyright in source code is completely separate from the copyright in object code. That is old hat.
Even if the source code is not "integrated", when the result of compiling is an indivisible executable object code, the result is a derivitive work. If I write a library and you use it, the resulting object code is a derivitive of both source files. The GPL specifically mentions and includes this case. The LGPL is offered as an alternative when the harsh consequences of the GPL are not what the author desires. End of story.
Which doesn't mean that "assign all your copyrights to the FSF" is a good thing; just that they aren't trying to obtain ownership of everything, they have reason for saying that.
Despite Nusphere's comment, the point is that it is *not* about linking (perhaps Nusphere where trying to cloud the issue).
Nusphere lost the right to redistibute MySQL because they made a modified version without the source code for that version being available: "Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
The MySQL authors therefore have the right to stop Nusphere redistributing their software.
MySQL AB undoubtedly have their own reasons for being so stiff necked.
Yes, but dynamic lining does NOT produce indivisible executable object code. I understand that NuSphere was statically linking, so they're in the wrong undoubtedly. But the point I'm raising is that you can dynamically load a shared object (ie, libmysqlclient.so), from a proprietary piece of software, without running afoul of the GPL.
:))
All your source -> your executable
All GPL source -> GPL shared library
When your executable runs, it then loads the GPL shared library in order to have access to the required object code. If it doesn't find it, it has unresolved symbols and craps out. It is, therefore, clearly dependant upon that shared library, but it is, by the same token, clearly NOT a derivative work, since 'your executable' is derived without any GPL source code.
The static executable under GPL is a clear cut violation. But that leaves static binaries under the LGPL (I'm unsure), the dynamic under the GPL (unsure, think legal), and dynamic under the LGPL (must be legal -- hell, what would the LGPL be good for if it wasn't?
It might be a good idea to add a little bit to the GPL regarding the "death penalty" provision.
Specifically, I would propose that use of GPL software be conditioned on legal stipulation of the proposition that continued violation of the terms of the GPL after notification is "irreparable injury" because it is theft of intellectual property.
Similarly, you should have to stipulate that the "balance of harms" of a violation is completely in favor of the author, and that this applies regardless of any business interest that exists as a result of the exploitation of the licence. The author offered a zero-cost good faith licence to use and extend their IP subject only to the condition that IP extentions be returned to the commons on demand. In many cases the GPL'ing author makes this deal believing that it will produce more value than retaining tight proprietary interest and selling the software for its market value. If someone else builds a business by skirting the extremely minimal requirements of the IP barter arrangement, then any revenue stream that results should be viewed by stipulation of the licence as being misappropriated and unjustly earned. Indeed pirated or stolen.
Thirdly, I would propose that the section 4 "death penalty" provision be made substantially more blunt. In particular, a "take down" process should be invoked (somewhat like the DMCA provision) that says if you recieve a letter of noncompliance from an author that your rights cannot be restored other than by a written order of the author, an arbitrator (see below), or a judge. Some people have noted that if you receive another copy that the licence can be read to re-grant a new and separate licence. All such weasle room should be removed by stating that this doesn't apply if you're licence was revoked for noncompliance.
Fourthly, I would propose that the licence should designate that any disputes be settled by arbitration by the FSF or by the EFF if the FSF is a party with the loser to bear all reasonable costs incurred by both sides.
If all of these contributors assign to the FSF the copyrights on their respective portions of the project, then it is much easier for the case to proceed, since there is just one plaintiff, and no nitpicking over who owns what part.
So I don't think that the FSF will refuse to help you if you don't assign them your copyright; it just makes the proceedings much simpler if you do.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The author(s) could also assign their rights, after the fact to the FSF or anyone else.
But this brings up another point. If you assign all your rights to the FSF, you wouldn't have the right to then sell your code to some commercial entity (sans any added GPL additions) because you wouldn't have any rights other than those granted under the GPL.
Would it be possible to grant just the GPL portion of your rights to the FSF, and retain the original rights, so you could take your original code private/commercial/closed. (I don't know much about assigning rights to the FSF, so it might be that this is how it works now, but I suspect not...)
This might make it unadviseable to assign rights to the FSF if you might want to exercise your right to close or commercialize your software. Again, I do understand that you couldn't take the resulting GPL code with other's changes and close it. But you could with the original.
Just some thoughts...
Cheers!
I see strong supporters of GPL/L-GPL liscensing jumping on the idea that programmers are protected. What about entire groups of programmers, as the case is here? It's not just John & Jimmy Doe versus Joe Schmoe from XYZ company.
/usr/local/bcast2000/bcast nukes their production box and months work is lost?
"...thus likely that she will not actually address the terms of the GPL itself in her decision, which is a good thing, since there was so little expert testimony about it..."
It's as if open-source software is destined to transcend limits of a hobbyists project and mutate into a corporate-sponsored system. Programmers fill a need with MySQL. Pretty soon, it is MySQL that fills needs within other corporations. Broadcast 2000 video editing software from Heroinewarrior.com was the best bet going. It worked, cost no bones, and featured GPL liscensing. Soon enough, dot bombs pop up and Bcast2k is pulled because of liability concerns. Corporation Soon2be Inc., need video editing and fills that need with Broadcast 2000. Who's liable if a setuid/gid root
it's looking scary for hackers who share their toys and get organized / sponsored. pitch your product to company Soon2be Inc., and when they merge with Around4Ever Corp., watch yer back.
SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
It's very dangerous to say "original author" however. RMS (and folk) coded the license very carefully not to include such phrases, because the original author may be different than the current project leader, especially in code forks. If the code forks, it may fork to change the current leader (in disgust, or creative differences, or whatever), and you don't want the "original author" to have any more control over it.
The GNU license is open-ended in such a way that you could set your "command structure" any way you want it. By its very nature, the code/document it protects is public-domain, and no "admin power" is give to anybody.
Perhaps a time of about a year might work, but then again, anybody trying to screw over the licence like that deserves to never touch the project again. Future generations will learn to look over their licenses very carefully if they don't want to get burned.
I'm sure this will give people a message to never fuck with the GNU license, the projects it protects, and never EVER fuck with the FSF!
Zodiac Survey
I mean, which part of "There is no warranty, express or implied" do the users of Bcast2k not understand? Bcast2k is not a "pirate tool". So I say put it back!
It's clear that allowing NuSphere to continue shipping code they have been shipping for the last seven months won't, by itself, do much more harm, if any, so the GPL issue was left alone.
Trademarks are another matter -- the more and longer they are abused, the greater the harm to the owner.
When the case itself goes to court, the text of the GPL will leave the judge little choice: NuSphere's product really is a derived work, and there is lots of case law about derived works, even with software.
For some background, see my letter to LWN last year. (Scroll down to the end. Incidentally, it appears I was the first person to tell Monty about this feature of the GPL.) Evidently it took this long to establish that NuSphere just wouldn't figure out where they stand without help from a judge.
"I'm a free-software publisher who has dealt with similar license issues, even so far as bringing up concerns about the GPLv2 with Bradley Kunz and in turn, Eben Moglen."
r ucefwebster.pdf
My appologies to Mr. Kuhn. I had met him at the open source convention in San Diego, and spoke with him about the FSF, which he is Vice President of -- the man on the street, if you will. He was extremely helpful and quite expedient in helping me with my GPL'd project and understanding license issues. (Thanks Brad - My bad!)
Anyway - I wish I had read this before I came down so soundly on MysqlAB's side: http://www.nusphere.com/misc_stuff/declarationofb
Why does the name Bruce Webster sound so familiar? He must have argued this GPL issue before?
Abe
So, I find your assertion that the MySQL people are acting like "spoiled children" unfounded--there is more going on here. In fact, it isn't even clear to me that NuSphere fixed the problem. Even if they did, it isn't their's to fix: once they fell out of compliance with the GPL, they can't fix it--they have lost all rights to using the code.
As for the issue of reaching compliance, if anybody can violate the GPL with impunity and then just fix it up without consequences, that will simply encourage a lot of companies to do that. Open source is at a serious disadvantage here because most GPL violations are very hard to detect. It makes sense to pursue some GPL violations seriously even if the violators eventually come into compliance.
Finally, as for damages, that's bogus. Open source companies live off things like consulting and documentation. If some other company comes out with an enhanced closed source version that ends up getting used widely, the open source companies lose business. The argument isn't as simple (or simplistic) as the MPAA's "1 million people copied Rocky XVII illegally", but there are still damages. And there are damages to the public as well (although they may be harder to enforce).
While Section 4 states quite clearly that if you break the GPL (which, let's assume they did for now) then all rights to distribute under the contract you entered into with the license are revoked.
That's not the end of the story as most people seem to be professing. The real issue comes when someone from NuSphere downloads ANOTHER copy of MySQL including the source, especially if this is a newer or later version or if they obtained it from a different party. Does this new download constitute a new contract between the parties, and if so then all a GPL violater has to do is download a new version and/or download from a different source and wham - new license, new contract, all sins are forgiven.
Failing that argument, the (rather simple) alternative is to create a new and independant legal entity, assign all your IP rights to the new entity (including the trading name) and the new entity downloads a new copy of the source and is immediately in compliance with the GPL.
The real danger here is that the GPL may and probably does have a "built in automatic forgiveness" clause. If you break the GPL then it seems likely that bringing yourself into compliance and relicensing is a trivial exercise.
Note: IANAL... I did see one on TV once though... In Australia... It was a British show... Ahh whatever.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
The GPL was never intended to stiffle development, which is what a "death penalty" would accomplish. Lest we forget, Nusphere is actually ADDING features to MySQL, particularly in the area of complex "transactions".
As far as I can tell, this entire case is MySQL trying to protect its market share. Nusphere's strategy seems to have been to drag its feet releasing source code to make it a more attractive partner than MySQL. It could offer to support MySQL code, but not vice versa. If you're a firm, your choice of partner is a no brainer.
The problem is that the GPL was not designed as a commercial license. Firms are not EXPECTED to make money selling code.
Some people claim that NuSphere is now distributing source with their binaries. If that is true, they may still have lost the right to distribute the software in the long term, but the "irreparable harm" argument for a preliminary injunction seems lessened because it puts them back on equal footing with MySQL right now.
until the copyright owner decides to give it to them again, they cannot distribute the code.
ITYM "The copyright owner or anyone else who has licensed the code from the copyright owner under the GPL."
If you want to support someone at any future GPL related hearing, please stay home (unless you're going to act like a grownup).
All we need to do to convince a judge that we're a bunch of kooks is dress like we're silicon valley engineers (or worse), play Quake on our laptops, and snicker when the judge makes technical mistakes. I learned not to be a snot to the authority figure (think: professor) back when I was in college, but apparently, some people never learn.
On the other hand, a non-free program must be provided on a physical medium . Thus, all derivative works of free software can be modified and used internally without releasing it So far, any program which dinamicly links to a library which is released under the LGPL can be modified and redistributed under the GNU GPL . The GPL is a free software license, and therefore a library covered by the GNU LGPL can be distributed non-commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party A consequence is that a library covered by the GNU GPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. . The GPL says that a program released under a GPL-compatible license must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL
It appears that any program which is compiled by GCC can be modified and redistributed under the GNU LGPL . According to section 1 of the GPL, any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under a proprietary license must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. We have already seen that any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under the GPL, with a special exception which allows linking proprietary modules under a controlled interface only can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . Note that a program released under a GPL-compatible license must be provided on a physical medium According to section 1 of the GPL, any program which dinamicly links to a library covered by a special exception of the GNU GPL is covered by the GNU LGPL . Nevertheless, a library covered by the GNU LGPL can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party
The GPL says that any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under the GPL is covered by the GNU LGPL . According to section 3 of the GPL, any program which uses fork() and exec() to invoke separate programs which are released under the GPL, with a special exception which allows linking proprietary modules under a controlled interface only is covered by the GNU GPL It must be emphasized, once again, that any program which is sold commercially under the GNU GPL can be modified and used internally without releasing it . On the other hand, a library covered by the GNU LGPL must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL Note that free software that uses non-free libraries can be distributed non-commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . It appears that all derivative works of free software can be modified and used internally without releasing it
It may be, then, that any program which is merely aggregated to separate programs which are released under a proprietary license is covered by the GNU GPL . Nevertheless, a library covered by a special exception of the GNU GPL must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL Notice, incidentally, that a library covered by the GNU GPL can be modified and used internally without releasing it . Presumably, a library covered by the GNU LGPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU LGPL. On our assumptions, a library covered by a special exception of the GNU GPL can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . According to section 3 of the GPL, any program written for a programming language interpreter which is released under the GPL must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL
This apears to be a classic case of confusion over concepts of IP.
THe tradmark issue would apply only to NuSphere attempting to pass their product off as being MySQL. With the GPL issue the relvent matter is copyright violation.
The first linked article completly muddles the two up. The second article does at least mention that there are at least two separate issues to the lawsuit.
Are YOU going to be the one that pays to buy RMS a box that can take that many hits?
Oh yeah, a P.S. just for those that moderate this kind of crap up because they think Stallman is an egomaniac, a religious nut that wants everything to run on Gnu/Linux and all that rot.
Stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD.
So there. Get over it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Clearly absurd, and unfortunately typical of NuSphere so far as honesty goes. Which is why I am NOT in any way angry at MySQL AB on this case - if you've followed it at all you know that NuSphere have been arses to them repeatedly, while relying on their code to sustain their business, so it's hard to criticise MySQL for just saying enough's enough, cease and desist you dumb f*ckers.
The Lesser GPL is indeed so phrased, and that is why Stallman recommends its use only when a pre-existing proprietary library beat us to the punch so far as functionality goes. If there is a reasonably priced proprietary library that gives you function X, then a GPL library that gives you function X isn't particularly attractive. So in that case it should be LGPL instead.
As to the rest... I think it's pretty clear to anyone with a small fraction of a clue that a statically linked program is a derivative work. The question remaining is whether a dynamically linked work is a derivative work as well. That's really the only area where FSF interpretations are likely to face any significant court challenge, and the FSF is and has been aware that their view may not prevail from the beginning - their publications make this clear.
The "official" FSF interpretation, if memory serves, is that dynamically linking a GPL library creates a derivative work. Yeah, that's a period.
Before the peanut gallery starts raving about the FSF being hypocritical here, let's just remember that this is a standard tactic in any legal or political arena, and the FSF would be selling us all short if they didn't use it.
Based on legal history, if it came down to the wire a court would be unlikely to uphold that claim in the event of a program which was dynamically linked against a GPL library but would also function if dynamically linked against another library instead. However, if there was no non-gpl library it could be dynamically linked against instead, the courts would likely side with us. Courts may not understand code, but they do understand pretty easily the difference between a work which has no value without X and a work which can work identically with X or Y.
Even if there is a non-GPL library now, if the work in question was distributed before the non-GPL library was available, the courts would likely call the work a GPL-derivative. Just one more reason to license your library under GPL NOT LGPL unless you are certain your library simply duplicates functions already available.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Does the GPL not hold outside the US? Do judgements in foreign courts not hold any weight in the US? Or is it simply because they had a better chance of winning a trademark case in the US? (or is their Trademark registered in the US?)
They should have known that a US judge is never going to make a decision that harms a US company to the advantage of a foreign one.
Female Prison Rape in NY
From Adam Kessel's Comments:
[The Judge] seemed to think "linking" code was analogous to hyperlinks on the web
In the case of dynamic linking, isn't it? I can link your graphic from your web server inside my web page. In both cases I'm telling the software (either a browser or the OS) where to go to get the rest of the relevant information. In the abstract sense, how is dynamic code linking unlike web linking?
It seemed like she [...] had trouble seeing how [immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage] was the case
This is the clincher for pretty much any temporary injunction filed based on the GPL. The GPL requires that no money can be due to authors of the work for its use. No money, no damages. No damages, no injunction without a full blown trial.
The only way I can see to get around this would be to offer the software under a dual license where the second license required significant remuneration. That way you could argue that if they failed to comply with the GPL then the second license applied, which would mean a breach involving a lot of unpaid cash.
<Rant On>
Why are we fighting this fight anyway? If we as software developers choose to give our stuff away for the common good, what does it matter if someone who doesn't share our values manages to make a buck or two off of it? If the Open Source / Free Software doctrines are sound, then such folks are going to lose in the long run anyway. Its not as if there is a shortage of folks out there who are willing to be a part of this without being forced. Not for the better part of a decade.
Think about it: If Microsoft could swipe the Linux kernel, wrap Windows around it, and sell it without the source, what would the fallout be? Millions of users would see a more stable and secure operating system, hardware manufacturers would have an easier time of providing drivers for Linux (since they would be essentially the same), and Redmond would be financially motivated to keep coming back to the core linux source tree rather than a single-shot fork. Socially, Linux in the public domain would be far more powerful than Linux under the GPL.
Besides, saying that I "freely" offer you my stuff but you must subscribe to my social values to get it seems a little like a 21st century version of Marxism. Who do we think we are that we should have such power? Wouldn't we be better off to just release in the public domain?
<Rant Off>
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Note that a library covered by a special exception of the GNU GPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. . Furthermore, a library covered by the GNU GPL can be modified and redistributed under the GNU LGPL According to section 1 of the GPL, any program which dinamicly links to a library which is released under the LGPL can be distributed non-commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . Presumably, free software that uses non-free libraries is covered by the GNU LGPL Notice, incidentally, that a non-free program can be modified and redistributed under the GNU GPL . With this clarification, any program which uses a library which is released under the LGPL must be provided on a physical medium With this clarification, a library covered by a special exception of the GNU GPL can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . According to section 1 of the GPL, free software that uses non-free libraries is covered by the GNU LGPL According to section 1 of the GPL, any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under a proprietary license can be modified and used internally without releasing it . So far, any program which is merely aggregated to separate programs which are released under the GPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU LGPL. Notice, incidentally, that a library covered by the GNU LGPL can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . With this clarification, any program which uses a library which is released under the GPL can be modified and redistributed under the GNU LGPL Analogously, any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under the GPL is covered by the GNU LGPL . So far, any program which uses a library covered by a special exception of the GNU GPL can be distributed non-commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party It must be emphasized, once again, that a program released under the GPL can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . It appears that any program which is compiled by GCC can be modified and redistributed under the GNU GPL It may be, then, that any program which is sold commercially under the GNU GPL is covered by the GNU GPL . So far, any program which dinamicly links to a library covered by a special exception of the GNU GPL must be provided on a physical medium For one thing, any program which is merely aggregated to separate programs which are released under the GPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. . It may be, then, that a program which copies part of itself on its output is covered by the GNU LGPL Suppose, for instance, that any program which uses a library which is released under the GPL can be distributed commercially, but must include a written offer valid for any third party . Note that any program which uses fork() and exec() to invoke separate programs which are released under the GPL can be modified and redistributed under the GNU LGPL We have already seen that any program which uses fork() and exec() to invoke separate programs which are released under the GPL, with a special exception which allows linking proprietary modules under a controlled interface only must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU LGPL. . It must be emphasized, once again, that binaries you distribute for download must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL Nevertheless, the source code for all derivative works can be modified and used internally without releasing it . A consequence is that any program which dinamicly links to a library covered by a special exception of the GNU GPL must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL. On our assumptions, a library covered by the GNU LGPL can be modified and redistributed under the GNU LGPL . Conversely, any program which is compiled by GCC is covered by the GNU LGPL A consequence is that any program which uses fork() and exec() to invoke separate programs which are released under a proprietary license must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL . Notice, incidentally, that any program which is sold commercially under the GNU GPL can be modified and used internally without releasing it A consequence is that any program which makes a system call to run separate programs which are released under the GPL, with a special exception which allows linking proprietary modules under a controlled interface only can be modified and used internally without releasing it . We have already seen that a library covered by the GNU LGPL must be provided on a physical medium The GPL says that a library covered by the GNU LGPL can be modified and redistributed under the GNU LGPL . A consequence is that all derivative works of free software must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL Nevertheless, any program which uses a library which is released under the GPL can be modified and used internally without releasing it . Furthermore, a GPL-covered program must be made available with its complete source code under the GNU GPL.
The judge in this case is ill qualified to sit it, plain and simple. she seemed to think "linking" code was analogous to hyperlinks on the web, and that a single package was like a single icon you would click on on the desktop. This is incompitence. As I wouldn't hire a lawyer who didn't understand the specifics of tech law I shouldn't have to put up with a judge who doesn't understand the specifics of tech law. How can justice be served when we're trying to have sophisticated conversations about what is legal and what is not legal and the judge is sitting there saying "what's a binary?"
How we know is more important than what we know.
Wish I could have viewed the Newsforge story. (sigh) They obliterated it with a popunder &over
The FSF has posted an Affidavit of Eben Moglen on Progress Software vs. MySQL AB Preliminary Injunction Hearing. It is pretty good reading.
They immediately gain permission to redistribute as soon as they download a new copy. Section 6 clearly states:
"Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." (my emphasis added).
In other words, they are automatically relicensed by the terms of the GPL as soon as they got a new version from MySQL-AB.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Clearly she didn't know or care that this is considered the big "test case" for this culturally iconic GPL. To her, this was just another license and copyright case. The question of whether the GPL is "valid" never came up; it was assumed to be as valid as any license. She knew, probably from the 200 pages of briefs she complained loudly about having had to read, a bit of the history and significance of the FS/OSS movements (when the MySQL lawyer began a diatribe about the importance of keeping software free, she interjected, "Yeah, yeah, I know, it's like a religious movement, it's Open Source!")
It was just as clear that she knew nothing about software and made no bones about it. She started out pronouncing the product in question "Mice Quill". (And then she has to deal with the plaintiff calling it "My Ess Cue Ell" and the defendant calling it "My Sequel"!) And, as has been remarked, when the MySQL lawyer used the phrase "single executable file," she interrupted and demanded that he clarify, "Is that like, when I click the icon for Microsoft Word Perfect, just one window comes up?"
However, like any good judge or lawyer, she was focused on avoiding time-consuming litigation with expert testimony and the like. She saw past all the technical arguments and FS/OSS crusading and recognized this case for what it was: a business relationship gone bad. She stopped in the middle of NuSphere's testimony and asked if the two businesses wanted to work together again. Both sides were taken way aback, there formed these two little clusters of suits as the lawyers and the company reps conferred; each lawyer in turn blustered for a minute about his client's demands and then said yes, they'd love to. (Significantly, this is where the judge got NuSphere to promise to take the EULA off their product.) Judge Saris then got her bailiff to get on the phone and find them a qualified arbitrator *right away* and offered them her courtroom for the rest of the afternoon. In essence, "Will you kids please just get a room and figure this out!"
It was a bit disturbing that she was so reluctant to see irreparable harm in letting a company abuse the GPL like NuSphere did and get away with it. I think that was mainly her wanting to avoid a long trial unless it proved essential, and making NuSphere quit using MySql would basically shut down NuSphere, and would thus require a long fierce court battle.
It is important that even cases like this, dealing with highly technical matters, be judged in a regular court by regular legal types with no prior knowledge of the field. Just like a case between a bricklayer and her construction company, or a musician and his record label. Because they need to be judged based on regular law, in proceedings comprehensible to an intelligent but uninformed outsider. If the judge had known the difference between static and dynamic linking, she would have been an industry insider and would have already had a bias one way or the other.
Fight for your right to read books!
The GPL limits distributing without source, not "commercially". You can charge whatever you like for a GPL'd binary (as long as source is included or available at cost).
RTFGPL! Anyone who has licensed the code under the GPL can, in turn, license the code under the same terms to another party. I could go download a copy of MySQL right now and license it to NuSphere, and they would get from me exactly the same rights they got from MySQL AB under the GPL.
Now if you want to argue that this is not the _intent_ of the GPL, then we're just violently agreeing. But it's not the intent that matters - it's the text. The FSF will have to fix this loophole in GPL v2.0.
Correct.
But the GPL does add additional restrictions if you distribute commercially: you must either provide source with binaries (if you provide binaries on "media", or a transferrable written offer to provide source. If you do not distribute commercially, it is sufficient to provide a reference to where you obtained the source.
One issue is whether pointing to an FTP server counts as providing source "on media" (for the case where, for example, you ship binaries on a CD, with a link to an FTP server for source). My understanding is that the FSF and RMS think "No." This is because network access may be nonexistant or prohibitively expensive for some.
Of course, if you provide both binaries and source on a server somewhere, you're O.K.
You could've hired me.
s/2/3/. The FSF already published (a decade ago) the GPL version 2.
Does Miocrosoft sell a product called 'security'? Do they guarantee security? I don't think so. So why should they be liable? If You want security, lock the door and cut the network cables.
And about open source products one can basically argument totally different: do You pay for it? No. You often just pay for the distribution. So where can there be liability? No one said it is perfectly fitted for high security uses...
I just don't understand this discussion. If You want security, get a firewall from SUN and a damn good admin.
Just my two cents...
You obviously haven't read the GPL very carefully, or you'd have noticed:
A. The GPL is currently at version 2!
B. The two parties involved in the GPL are the copyright holder(s) on one side and the licensee on the other. If any one of the copyright holders has revoked your right to copy, you have no right to copy! End of story. Standard copyright law.
Female Prison Rape in NY
It's 3:55 right now in Waltham, MA. That was Jimmy Buffett's Calaloo, off of the soundtrack to his musical Don't Stop the Carnival. Kind of a treat for those goatse.cx readers that happen to enjoy shit from the Coral Reefers now and then. Now we segue into every Slashdotter's favorite band, the defenders of Napster known as Metallica, with the masterful "Ain't My Bitch" from Load