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."
When are we going to start putting the Coral link IN THE STORY around here?
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
Security companies use FUD all the time to drive the point home. And many of them are extremely wealthy as a result.
The different is that FUD - fear, uncertainty, doubt - can in fact be grounded in reality. If you don't install a firewall, anti-virus software, and apply patches, you're not likely to last. So when they spread FUD, they're actually just educating. When SCO or Microsoft spreads FUD, they're just marketing. Sure, educating potential customers and marketing to potential customers can overlap - but don't be confused that FUD is necessarily an evil thing.
From the sounds of it, Sakic took some of the work he was paid to do exclusively for Connelley and gave it away to the Mambo guys.
The moral of the story is, read the whole article.
Sakic claims there are two separate peices of code based on code already in Mambo. So not only did he not publish the work he did for Connolly, it was derived from GPL-ed code in the first place.
If Connolly wanted to build a proprietary product based on open-source code, he should have started out with code under a less restrictive license like the BSD one.
He is redistributing Mombo from his website, but theoretically it would only be original Mombo code (without his contracted mods) if the mods hadn't made it back into the main branch.
If I were paid to, say, take The Horde, and make modifications to it for a company in order to make it interact with product X, thereby giving this company a (percieved) advantage over their competitors, I have no right to take the modifications and give them back to the The Horde development team without permission from the company I was contracted by.
Now, If the company I wrote the code for were to go on and sell "their version" of The Horde, it would have to be GPL'd, but they are only using it internally - so it doesn't.
This is one of the advantages of OSS to comercial entities - they can take the code, modify it to their needs and use it without hassle. They can make money with an OSS program, they just can't make money off selling a derivative of a program without sharing the love (GPL'ing it).
Although, I'd like to see this guy do the noble thing and release the changes back to the Mombo team as a show of good will and gratitiude for being able to use the code as a base for his success, he is in no way compelled to do so.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
Gates has set back the cause of quality proprietary software by 20 years with his viral-like Microsoft EULA, which infects everything it comes into contact with.
Notice that Apple based their OS around the Darwin kernel, precisely because of the major problems inherant in the Microsoft EULA.
How can we (the closed source community) ever hope to be taken seriously by the people with the big bucks (Fortune 500 corportations and governments) when our main software license imposes so many unreasonable restrictions? It's time to kill the Microsoft EULA.
IANAL, but this seems like a very simple dispute to settle.
Mr. Connolly's dispute is with Mr. Sakic. When you pay someone to do creative work for you, you do not necessarily transfer ownership of the copyright with it. First things first, Mr. Connolly must produce a contract that transfers the copyright to him. If he has no such contract, he has no case what-so-ever because he doesn't own the code.
Secondly, with such a contract, he must show that the code in Mambo actually infringes on his copyright. Without such proof, he has no case what-so-ever because there is no infringement.
Now, again IANAL, but if Mr. Connolly were to be able to prove both of these things, restitution must come from Mr. Sakic, not from some innocent bystander. The *users* of Mambo are *not* in violation of any copyright law. As an example, it is not infringement of copyright for me to listen to a copy of a song -- only to *copy* it.
The Mambo team *might* also be infringing since they distribute Mambo. However, I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that no court in the world would hear a case against Mambo without resolution of a case against Mr. Sakic. If Mr. Connolly makes no move to sue Mr. Sakic, I believe they are pretty much safe to ignore him (Note: this is not legal advice as I am in no way qualified to give advice).
Now, if Mr. Connolly instead argues that the code modification is a trade secret, then he also only has a case against Mr. Sakic. Once a trade secret has been released, it is no longer a trade secret. He may indeed have a case against Mr. Sakic in this area (though I highly doubt it), but no one else is at risk.
So in summary, Mr. Connolly should sue Mr. Sakic if he has a legitimate grievance. Until that issue is settled, he would be wise to keep his mouth shut.
In my personal opinion, if you hire a free software programmer to modify a GPL piece of software, it is *your* responsibility to explain *very clearly* that you do not want the changes distributed. Distribution of modified GPL code is the norm. If you do not explain this I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone that the programmer should have known better.
It's obvious to anyone that this scenario could easily have been avoided. The issue here is the restrictive nature of the GPL. Had this code been released under the more flexible and free BSD license, none of these issues would arise.
WRONG.
The issue here is that Connolly claims Sakic inserted code under a restrictive licence into a GPL program without the copyright holder's permission. Replace "GPL" with "BSD", and the argument made by Connolly is the same, regardless of its legal backing.
At most, the only additional right Sakic would have if Mambo were BSD would be the ability to relicence Mambo code into a proprietary program whether or not he is the original author; credit need only be given. Under the GPL, Sakic would have to be the original author in order to relicence the code.
However, Connolly's argument arises from the appearance of similar functionality in Mambo after it was added to his own proprietary program. He claims the code was lifted from the modifications made by Sakic; the programmer says he reimplemented the functionality in a clean situation. BSD or GPL, Connolly would still argue that Sakic had no right to contribute the code to Mambo that was written for Furthermore and licenced under tight restrictions. BSD or GPL, Sakic would still argue that he rewrote entirely new code for Mambo.
Connolly still got his damn code in the first place, and since he isn't distributing it, the GPL as it applies to Furthermore is dormant (recall that the code Sakic modified for Furthermore was under the GPL). The GPL would only kick in if Connolly distributes Furthermore and if Sakic was not the original author, and thus would have had had no right to relicence the Mambo code.
Now, get off your soapbox.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.