Is CocoaTech Violating the GPL?

elliotj asks: "In the latest version of their Finder-replacement product, PathFinder CocoaTech has included a terminal feature based on sourcecode from the GPL'd iTerm. They have made available the classes they developed from the iTerm sources, but not all the sourcecode for their product. Since iTerm is GPL (and not LGPL), shouldn't they have to make the ENTIRE codebase available? This is being debated on their forums. If this is true, what can we do to get CocoaTech to open up the rest of the code?"

Comments

Re:I'm not sure if that does the trick, honestly..

[Elwood P Dowd]

Of course that does the trick. You aren't allowed to ship someone else's code except under their license. If they are violating the GPL, then they must stop shipping, and pay damages if they get sued. Nothing, however, forces them to open their own code.

Re:Just a thought...

[MBoffin]

Someone did ask.

Re:Nothing.

[Carnildo]

They are much more likely to remove the GPL'd code than they are to open up their product.

As was pointed out in the forums, they've got a third option:

Or licence it independently. There's nothing in the GPL to prevent you from comming to a seperate understanding with the author(s) of the GPL code, and using it under whatever terms you find mutually agreable.

The GPL is not "viral" and does not prevent rational solutions to cases like this. Let's not feed the FUDsters.

-- MarkusQ

Re:That's not the spirit of Open Source.

[fault0]

> Why do you want to force them to open up the rest of the code?

Well, that's the terms of the license. Either release the ENTIRE program under the GPL (which he wouldn't have to if iTerm was LGPL), remove the code, or get the author to private relicense it for you. Until they do one of these things, CocoaTech is in violation of the GPL, and distribution of PathFinder can be stopped and damages can be sought.

Re:Wrap GPL with LGPL with proprietary, vice versa

[javabsp]

No you cannot. If your LGPL code links to GPL code, then it needs to be GPL'ed as well.

Re:Pragmatism

[shaitand]

cocoatech was contacted via the forums and released some code, but not everything they should be.

In that sense, they've already been contacted prior to slashdotting the issue and already refused.

Coccoatech Says ...

[SteveM]

From the Cocoatech web site:

The GPL and Path Finder

It has come to our attention that there has been controversy about Path Finder's use of some open source code. Path Finder uses a heavily tweaked version of the open sourceiTerm application as the basis for Path Finder's built-in Terminal window and drawer. It always has been Cocoatech's intention to comply fully with the open source licensethat iTerm falls under. We believed that by releasing the complete framework that contains the open source code, this would fulfill the requirements of our usage of GPL'ed code. We are investigating this issue in depth and intend to fully comply with the rules of the GPL. We are also working with the authors of iTerm to make sure this issue is resolved. We wish to reiterate that we support the spirit of the GPL and the open source community, and did not / do not intend to break the rules. We will post another update to this web site to follow up on this issue. We hope to have a clarification and have this issue rectified as soon as possible.

SteveM

Re:Pragmatism -- Like VMWare?

[benploni]

Are you sure about this? I asked a representative this exact question at a presentation. He stronly asserted that their ESXServer kernel was not based on Linux. I was skeptical, considering how much work would be required just to create all the drivers for the NICs it supports.

So, have you got any evidence of this? Its a serious allegation about a company whose livelihood is seriously invested in Linux.

Re:Pragmatism -- Like VMWare?

[passthecrackpipe]

Well, I have the ESX server CD's, and several machines running ESX server. If the kernel isn't Linux, it is a very good imitation. Tell me what info you need as proof, and I'll provide.