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:*groan*

[the argonaut]

Then instead of simply insulting the author, why not point out how he's incorrect. I DID READ the GPL, and basically come to the same conclusion. They don't have to release the code to everybody - just to those they distribute binaries to.

So how is this incorrect?

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

[the argonaut]

Except continuing to distribute the binary that depends on the GPL'd code.

Wrap GPL with LGPL with proprietary, vice versa

[JGski]

IANAL but it seems the general solution to this kind of problem is to wrap GPL code with LGPL code with proprietary code, or the other way around. That was the point of the LGPL license, wasn't it? That's what I've done in the past.

The primary issue is: can you actually wrap it and keep the pieces properly separated so free pieces can be free and non-free can be dealt with apart or are the links too pervasive between the two (three)? If the different components are too interwoven to be cleanly separable, it suggests your code design sucks, the code design of the GPL your using sucks, or both.

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

[the argonaut]

Unless it's determined that the only remedy that would correct the situation is specific performance - i.e., a court order telling CocoaTech that they have to open the source code.

While I think that this is an unlikely remedy, and that a fine would be much more likely, I think one could make a good argument in favor of SP.

Mozilla had the exact problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a project with, say, patches received from fifty or so patch authors, how do you do this? You'd have to come to an agreement with all of them.

You're absolutely right, and that was a big headache for Mozilla when they were changing their license.

I've thought about GPLing some jive that I've written, but not accept patches from *anyone* in what I maintained. Then I'd be free -- to relicense the code if I ever wanted to -- and the code would be Free to boot.

Haven't gotten that brave yet, however. ;^)

Assign Copyright

[crisco]

Some maintainers of GPL software ask that copyright on patches be assigned to the maintainers so that situations like these can proceed in a sane manner. Credit for contribution is still given but the original author(s) maintain control of the codebase.

Re:Pragmatism -- Like VMWare?

[passthecrackpipe]

VMWare grossly abuses the GPL with their ESXServer product. They use a highly modified linux kernel for their host OS, and the host OS is clearly Linux. however, there is no source for the new kernel they install, and when asked (I did so at a few presentations) they simply chuckle, and mutter something about hell freezing over. None different really from how sw-soft is behaving with their vitruozzo product.

Everywhere I look in the enterprise space there are software companies trampling all over the GPL. We need a good strong courtcase to send some of these fuckers a message.....

Re:A lot of GPL advocates think this

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a software developer. Proprietary code has all but prevented progress in my profession (imagine the state of civil engineering if all bridges were concealed under tarps and disasters were hushed up). If I could support myself by writing free software, I would certainly refuse do business with someone who wants to further hobble my peers.