Slashdot Mirror
Mambo Users Threatened
An anonymous reader writes "Newsforge has an article about a recent dispute over code in Mambo (a Free CMS). A Mr. Connolly has sent threatening emails to Mambo users over this, a move John Weathersby of OSSI was quoted as saying 'That's ... not prudent.' The dispute is over some trivial code that checks whether a story is a lead story and if so displays it across multiple columns, as it's a modification of GPL code the Mambo team maintain it must remain GPL but Mr. Connolly claims otherwise."
The Newsforge report says that Mr. Connolly never redistributed the disputed code... therefore the disputed code is _not_ under the GPL. Under the GPL, you can do what you like with the code; you only have to GPL your modifications if you re-distribute.
CMS is "content management system." It is a program to make something like a "newspaper" type web page -- what you might see when you go to NYTimes.com.
;)
It took me a long time to figure that out, so I think I should get some upmodding here. Oh BTW, I have mod points myself right now, so if you are *bad*, I'm commin' after you
WARNING Issued to Users of Popular Software Application
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
CHICAGO, September 15, 2004 -- The following is an Open Letter from Furthermore, Inc. to the Open Source and Technology Community Regarding the Misappropriation of Intellectual Property:
If you are presently using the software application "Mambo OS" in any release post October 3, 2003, you and your organization are potentially exposed to CIVIL LITIGATION and possibly CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
Our company, Furthermore, Inc., owns the code that enables the appearance and management of the "Lead Story Block" in Mambo. This code was taken without our permission by a lead member of the Mambo Development Team and put into Mambo's core program. Our copyright was then attributed to Miro International. Here we are reiterating our ownership of the Intellectual Property and issue a formal WARNING that we are preparing to file legal action against users of this application.
Do know that we've tried to resolve this cooperatively. However, the leadership of the Mambo Project is intractable in their misunderstanding in fact and law. They wrongly contend that since the code was put into the "General Public License" pool, it too must be GPL. Also, they wrongly contend that as our trade secrets have been variously modified, they are immune.
Bottom line: As express permission was never granted, their transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority is null and void. Also, the right to use any/all derivative works also was/is not granted as defined by law. Lastly, using a trade secret to gain unfair advantage is by definition against the law.
Anticipating that problems like these would be greatly amplified by the Internet, the US Congress recently and significantly strengthened the power of the law. As a result, the consequences of an infringement have never been more stringent. In addition to the punitive monetary damages that are being awarded in related civil suits, the law now makes these types of activities a federal crime.
In 1997, Congress passed the No Electronic Theft Act; and in 1996, it passed the Economic Espionage Act.
The NET Act makes copyright infringement a crime. It's a misdemeanor if it is done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, or by making or distributing one or more copies of copyrighted works that have a total retail value in excess of $1,000 within a 180-day period. It's a felony if it involves a minimum of ten copies of copyrighted works with a retail value of more than $2,500 within a period of six months. To date, NET Act related cases primarily involve pirates accused of illegally copying and distributing copyrighted computer software over the Internet. Sentencing under the NET include substantial fines and imprisonment of 3 to 10 years.
The EEA makes it a crime to steal (or misappropriate) trade secrets. The Act makes even the attempt or conspiracy to steal or misappropriate trade secrets a crime. The Act includes both direct and indirect theft of a trade secret, including its alteration or destruction. Individuals and organizations convicted of violating the EEA face severe penalties. Section 1832 of the Act covers theft of a trade secret "that is related to or included in a product," including both direct and indirect theft of a trade secret, including its alteration or destruction. A person convicted of violating Section 1832 faces a fine of up to $500,000 or a prison sentence of up to 10 years, or both, while any organization that commits any offense described in Section 1832 may be fined up to $5,000,000.
Lastly, we deeply regret that we have no choice but to seek remedy from the users of Mambo. Mambo has explicitly informed us that "the Mambo project can offer no further assistance in this matter. Mambo can not be party to any disputes between individuals or companies concerning the use of Mambo." Plainly, it's you the user they've left holding the bag.
Sincerely,
Brian Connolly
President
Furthermore, Inc.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
I could be misunderstanding it, but Connolly seems to be saying his code, which he paid a developer to write and told he could not GPL and rerelease it, was put into the Mambo main branch, while his developer is saying it's similar code in function, not [necessarily] form, and reimplementing it for free after being paid to write a proprietary version isn't the same as submitting the code he wrote for Connolly to the Mambo source tree. I could be mistaken here, but couldn't this easily be resolved by a simple comparison of the Mambo and Futuremore source code? I mean, really.
In addition, the Newsforge article's summary claims that Connolly's code is out in the wild, whether it should be or not. That's not been proven, in any of the data I've read. Shouldn't the dispute first resolve whether the code is actually from the Furthermore source before the issue of licensing even comes up?
I don't know about you, but this does sound a lot like SCO...
10 PRINT "Your open source project has our code!"
20 PRINT "Prove it!"
30 PRINT "We don't have to prove it, it's our code!"
40 GOTO 20
It's only an insult if it's not true.
While the first bit of the newsforge article almost goes out of its way to give Connelly's claims the benefit of doubt, the most interesting bit is the coder's (Sakic) reply at the very very end of the article (I know most of you didn't or can't read that far ;) ).
Sakic claims that the code implimented for Mambo was not derived from the Furthermore code, that these were independent implimentations, and that the Mambo code even had differing features.
Secondly, IANAL, but I don't think an end user is really subject to litigation in this case. SCO vs. DCC was mostly thrown out and the court concurred that DCC was *not* required to certify that it was not either using Linux or contributing to it. Using software which has infringing code is probably not a crime to my knowledge. Distributing it is. So he could go after distributors, but this is like saying: "You unwittingly bought a counterfit copy of WIndows. We will charge you with piracy." I don't think that this would fly in court.
IANAL, but Connelley's legal analysis seems to be as strange as SCO's. The Newsforge article seems to indicate that he has not even done code comparison! As a professional, if I suspect that something is wrong, this is the *first* thing I would do rather than the last. Indeed he could be opening himself up to serious lawsuits (tortuous interference). In general, though IANAL, I would think that a lawyer would suggest investigative work before public announcements. This tells me he probably hasn't talked to one....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You can download Mambo (CVS Version) at another of the core developers websites - Phil Taylor
http://www.phil-taylor.com/
Phil was also personally attacked by Connerly - and even his faith as a Christian was strongly attacked in emails from Brian.
Also read Brians comments at
http://www.mamboportal.com/content/view/1562/
while (!asleep()) sheep++
You mean the google cache or the coral cache?
Brian Connolly will distort this story every way til Tuesday, but there is only one set of facts that matter in this case:
1. Brian Connolly paid a Mambo Open Source developer to modify 9 trivial lines of an existing GPL component.
2. One month later, the developer added a similar technique to the Mambo core.
3. Brian Connolly's actual code NEVER appeared in the core Mambo software in any way shape or form.
4. Therefore, any of Connolly's claims are based solely on protecting his big "trade secret", or the very "idea" of displaying a leading story following by two columns of headlines.
5. Any programmer knows how trivial this is, and that this layout technique has been in use since the advent of HTML tables. It is not a "trade secret" that has any protection under any law.
Please contact Brian Connolly and ask him to produce the offending code. He will not be able to because it simply does not exist.
- A Mambo User and Developer
p.s. Furthermore also claims it never distributed the software. This is not only false (we have screenshots of his old download section) but irrelevent given the facts above.
Emir Sakic, the developer of code in dispute:
"I modified an existing Mambo frontpage component and hardcoded nine lines of code that would display the leading story."
"A month later (October 3, 2003) I developed similar functionality and contributed it to Mambo core. I did not use the same code as the nine lines delivered to Connolly. I implemented a different, dynamic solution with selectable frontpage settings."
"Mr Connolly still claims that Mambo contains the code developed for him when in fact it does not. If you would take a look, you would see that the code in Connolly's site differs from the code in any version of Mambo. "
I don't think this looks bad for OSS. Don't try to operate a technology-based business on top of other people's work without a basic understanding of the laws involved, just like any other business. This dude has no fundamental right to his business, he needs to take responsibility for putting proper contracts and documentation in place when he hires developers, and be very clear and explicit about handling copyright issues with his code, just like any other techology business. If he can't handle that, and he can't keep a competitive edge for his business, well, cry me a river for this moron.
This stuff normally doesn't happen because companies "paper trail the fuck out of it" (to use the software industry term of art) when it comes to employment agreements, independent contractor agreements, and copyright assignment agreements, and for good reason.
There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings. I bothered to read the article, the responses (they both added comments to the Newsforge article), and some of the messages posted.
Some people seem to think that because Mambo is GPL, the code modifications must be released under the GPL. This is only true if Connolly distributes his application. If he keeps the code "within his walls" then he can keep his code changes private. When Emir put the code out there, that violated the GPL which allows Connolly to keep the code to himself in this special case. OK? So Connolly isn't a 100% whack-job.
But the next misunderstanding is on Connolly's part: his code is NOT in the Mambo codebase! Emir re-implemented the code, and gave it extra functionality. So the whole first misunderstanding is mostly irrelevant, because there is no copied code! And this is (I think) why Mambo keeps asking for more info and not getting it: if Connolly had to give line-by-line details of the violation, we would see that there is no line-by-line theft.
However, there is the third misunderstanding (or assumption). And that is that many people appear to assume that Emir clean-roomed this. He didn't. From everything I've read, Emir got sneaky: he liked the feature, he wanted it in Mambo, so he took the code he already wrote for Connolly, and tweaked the shit out of it so it looked different and better. And it really is different and better, but it's built right off what he had already done for Connolly. I don't know what to think about this part -- there is no law I know of that would address this clearly. It probably exists, but I don't know of it. And so I'm left thinking that Connolly is completely out of luck and has absolutely no case at ALL, but Emir behaved terribly, and I wouldn't want such a person working on my codebase.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &