Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is CocoaTech Violating the GPL?

Posted by Cliff on from the bad-company-no-donut dept.

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?"

3 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Just a thought... by MBoffin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Someone did ask.

  2. Re:Nothing. by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Informative
    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
    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  3. Coccoatech Says ... by SteveM · · Score: 4, Informative

    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