Mambo Users Are Free And Clear

ValourX writes "By now most of you have heard of the copyright infringement and code theft claims involving the Mambo content management system and businessman Brian Connolly. Legal questions have been raised, guesses have been made, commentary has flowed forth, and everyone involved in the dispute has had their fifteen minutes to relay their sad tale of injustice. Now it is time for the facts, and NewsForge can definitively say, based on material and quotes from Larry Rosen, Dan Ravicher, and Eben Moglen, that Connolly's legal threats against innocent Mambo users are baseless. Part of the new information in this article reveals that the SCO Group helped Brian Connolly by giving him some media contacts. NewsForge is part of OSTG, like Slashdot."

Comments

What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[stratjakt]

A little bit of Rosen in my life
A little bit of Moglen by my side
A little bit of Ravicher makes me dance
A little bit of Taco dripping down tims pants

I don't know what mambo is. They probably stole this guy's code, though.

hmm SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

If you work hard enough you can find an SCO link in anything.. So I consider THAT part baseless however I am pleased we can us mumbo in peace =)

So glad...

[ari_j]

I'm so glad that this critical speculation has made the front page of Slashdot.

The impossible is possible

[Colonel Cholling]

You can do anything with Mambo... anything at all. The only limit is yourself.

Oh wait, no, I'm thinking of this.

Re:The impossible is possible

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHA!
you sir, have made me laugh.

Re:The impossible is possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Which made me think of this one... http://www.megacar.com/.

oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

i wouldn't have guessed that, although i hoped :P

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[networkBoy]

Now *that* was funny.
-nB

Facts?

[toetagger1]

"Now it is time for the facts, and NewsForge can definitively say, based on material and quotes from Larry Rosen, Dan Ravicher, and Eben Moglen, that Connolly's legal threats against innocent Mambo users are baseless."

So where are the facts?

Re:Facts?

[lothar97]

Come on, you don't really want "real facts" to get in the way of "forceful conjecture?" It really is amazing how pretty much everything in the news is based upon what people say or think, and is not reporting facts.

In this case, there could a legal opinion drafted, a ruling from a judge, etc, and not merely "expert opinions." An expert opinion varies from a regular opinion only in the fact that the expert one costs more.

Re:Facts?

[knarfling]

My Signature is so on-topic that I don't know what else to say. Give me a great theory over facts any day.

Re:Facts?

[ValourX]

When two opposing sides agree on common, verifiable elements, those common elements are facts. When two experts agree on a standard and accepted policy or interpretation, that policy or interpretation is a fact.

Now quit trolling and RTFA.

-Jem

Re:Facts?

[winwar]

"When two experts agree on a standard and accepted policy or interpretation, that policy or interpretation is a fact."

Hmm, different definition of fact than I have. Policies and interpretations are not facts. They may be derived from them. Or they may have no relation to them (more often the case....)

"When two opposing sides agree on common, verifiable elements, those common elements are facts."

But they may not be facts by my definition-things that are essentially true (in as much as you can prove anything, of course). You can agree on common verifiable elements and still be wrong.... Legal "facts" do not equate to "scientific" facts.

None of this should be taken to mean that the grandparent wasn't trolling and shouldn't RTFA :)

Re:Facts?

[Progman3K]

"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Fact Fact, n. L. factum, fr. facere to make or do. Cf.
Feat, Affair, Benefit, Defect, Fashion, and -fy.
1. A doing, making, or preparing. Obs.

A project for the fact and vending Of a new kind of
fucus, paint for ladies. --B. Jonson.

2. An effect produced or achieved; anything done or that
comes to pass; an act; an event; a circumstance.

What might instigate him to this devilish fact, I am
not able to conjecture. --Evelyn.

He who most excels in fact of arms. --Milton.

3. Reality; actuality; truth; as, he, in fact, excelled all
the rest; the fact is, he was beaten.

4. The assertion or statement of a thing done or existing;
sometimes, even when false, improperly put, by a transfer
of meaning, for the thing done, or supposed to be done; a
thing supposed or asserted to be done; as, history abounds
with false facts.

I do not grant the fact. --De Foe.

This reasoning is founded upon a fact which is not
true. --Roger Long.

Note: TheTerm fact has in jurisprudence peculiar uses in
contrast with low; as, attorney at low, and attorney in
fact; issue in low, and issue in fact. There is also a
grand distinction between low and fact with reference
to the province of the judge and that of the jury, the
latter generally determining the fact, the former the
low. --Burrill Bouvier.

Accessary before, or after, the fact. See under
Accessary.

Matter of fact, an actual occurrence; a verity; used
adjectively: of or pertaining to facts; prosaic;
unimaginative; as, a matter-of-fact narration.

Syn: Act; deed; performance; event; incident; occurrence;
circumstance.

"WordNet (r) 2.0"
fact
n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or
events that have occurred; "first you must collect all
the facts of the case"
2: a statement or assertion of verified information about
something that is the case or has happened; "he supported
his argument with an impressive array of facts"
3: an event known to have happened or something known to have
existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of
the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses
are not facts"

"The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03)"
FACT

Fully Automated Compiling Technique

"The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03)"
fact

<artificial intelligence, programming> The kind of clause
used in logic programming which has no subgoals and so is
always true (always succeeds). E.g.

wet(water).
male(denis).

This is in contrast to a rule which only succeeds if all its
subgoals do. Rules usually contain logic variables, facts
rarely do, except for oddities like "equal(X,X).".

(1996-10-20)

Re:Facts?

[gl4ss]

the fact is that it doesn't matter.

in this case, you could READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE, and come to the conclusion that nothing the other party does has any merit.

(wouldn't have even he had gotten the coder under written contract)

hell, if you buy something gpl'd and even distribute it yourself.. wtf you except it to be?

Re:Facts?

[Citizen of Earth]

An expert opinion varies from a regular opinion only in the fact that the expert one costs more.

But, expert opinion is exactly the same as regular opinion in that you can always find two experts in any field that have diametrically opposite opinions on any subject. I guess it boils down to which expert dresses better in front of the jury.

Re:Facts?

[Anonymous Coward]

For that matter, where are the quotes? Typical slashdot crud.

More of the same.

[Jaywalk]

This is just a lame attempt to keep playing the "open source is dangerous" riff that Microsoft loves so well. The main offensive (and I mean that in all senses of the word) is, of course, the SCO case. Fortunately, this course of attack will eventually fall on deaf ears if no valid case is actually put together. Expect more of this kind of thing until the mainstream press realizes there is no story here and decides to move along.

Re:More of the same.

[El]

But, how many times has Microsoft been sued for infringement of intellectual property? More times than Open Source has, by my count. If I were Microsoft, I'd avoid drawing attention to the issue! "People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!" and all that...

Let's see... Apple, Stac, Eolas, Priceline, InterTrust, AT&T, Burst.com, and GoldTouch[?] have all sued Microsoft for infringement. M$ has been sued at least 42 times for patent infringement! All in all, I'd say the Open Source movement has a much better track record than Microsoft does in respecting intellectual property rights!

Re:More of the same.

[badriram]

But when companies win against MS they can afford the bill, most opensource apps cannot afford such a bill and neither can its developers.

Re:More of the same.

[El]

First rule of tort law: only sue people that have money! The only point of suing an open source developer is to get them to stop distributing allegedly infringing code. Couldn't the same thing happen to Microsoft? Couldn't somebody get an injunction against Microsoft to force them to stop distributing any copies of XP because one of the thousands of developers cut and pasted code they shouldn't have? Or are you saying that since Microsoft can afford to buy it's way out of most any conceivable lawsuit, that makes it ok to infringe? What if somebody sues them that is more interested in blocking them from shipping their software than in making a quick buck?

Re:More of the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

alot of the people Connolly has been abusive to do have money and the mambo copyright holder certainly does

Re:More of the same.

[rewt66]

The problem is, if I'm a developer, and Microsoft lifted my code, and I want to stop them from shipping XP, I'd better have a lot of money and time for lawyers, because they're going to tie me up in court for years. And when I finally get a legal decision, then they will say, "Well, we removed that code years ago, so we can keep shipping XP." And, if the legal decision was that they couldn't ship XP because it contained my code, they would be right - they could keep shipping if they had removed my code in the intervening years of legal battles.

Re:More of the same.

[El]

That exactly what a preliminary injunction is for -- to keep somebody that has harmed you from continuing to benefit from that harm while they tie the case up in court for years. Like most arguments leveled against open source, it falls apart when you realize that closed source is just as vulnerable or even more vulnerable.

Question: What's to keep somebody from inserting malicious code in Linux? Answer: What's to keep a disgruntled Redmond employee from inserting malicious code in Windows? The difference is, Linux code goes through a lot more peer review!

Re:More of the same.

[Kehvarl]

M$ has been sued at least 42 times for patent infringement!

The ultimate question must have been: "How many times will Microsoft be sued before achieving global dominationa and enslaving the universe?"

Re:More of the same.

[mdfst13]

The Eolas case demonstrates the fallacy of this argument. Microsoft continues to distribute with the code, because removing the code would be too expensive to do immediately. Further, the presence of the code does not hurt Eolas (just not getting paid for the presence of the code), it just helps Microsoft.

Btw, you didn't answer the actual objection, which was that if you Microsoft loses such a judgment, they will simply take out the offending code and replace it with something else.

The difference between inserting code in Linux vs MS Windows is that we can see the code in Linux; Microsoft could insert code without anyone being able to tell.

Re:More of the same.

[dunng808]

You may not achieve the goal of keeping your code out of XP, but you would be awarded fees for its use. Hopefully your legal team won't scoop it all up. You had better hope that during this time, XP is a financial success. If it is a flop and Microsoft goes belly up you victory will be hollow. One must distinguish between hallowed principles and hollow victories.

Perhaps he should have just quit..

[gphinch]

..when he contacted SCO and asked them for legal advice.

Re:Perhaps he should have just quit..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but he probably owns SCO stock so he went with what he knew. (and that isn't much I guess)

Can a compitant person really believe that a block of text on their web page is unlike anyother blocks of text elsewhere? I say no.

Re:Perhaps he should have just quit..

[mod_parent_down]

Yeah, What incompitance!

Re:Perhaps he should have just quit..

[WWWWolf]

..when he contacted SCO and asked them for legal advice.

And he didn't even do what SCO actually recommended - doing a press conference where he'd show a slide with his code (in Greek letters, to carefully protect his precious proprietary trade secrets) on left and OSS Mambo code on right.

Connolly replies...

[saddino]

FYI, he's issued his rebuttal here: Point-by-Point Response to Matzan's Op-Ed

Re:Connolly replies...

[Anonymous Coward]

and a reader replies
http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=41095&op= &threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=147&tid =29&pid=99698#99718/

Re:Connolly replies...

[cryogenix]

IANAL That said, I'm going to take a stab at rebutting the rebuttal... Just the points that I think actually have any bearing on the case.

2. "Newsforge can definitively say that Connolly's legal claims against the Mambo community are baseless." -- Actually, Newsforge cannot "definitively" say anything legal. Moreover, it is patently illegal for Matzan and Newsforge to provide something that can be construed as legal advice.

Newsforge can definitively say whatever it wants and be correct about it without being a lawyer. It can say that your claim is completely worthless and can be 100% correct. I can say if you jump off a 3 story building you are going to get hurt. I can say it definitively and it's not legal advice.

4. "It would be impossible for anyone to download Connolly's code without root or direct FTP access to the site." -- That's an assumption not based on any firsthand evidence. Hackers hack variously every day. But that aside, Jem then argues that the "competitor" was in the process of "reverse engineering." However, reverse engineering would still require the permission of the copyright holder.

I didn't realize we just extended this charge to hacking, so I guess someone will be arrested soon, but if you hack into a site to download it, you are still probably giving yourself either root or ftp access to download it, therefore that statement is still correct. Reverse engineering to my knowledge is not illegal unless you have a license agreement specifically covering that. I don't have enough information to really go into that.

5. "The code committed to the Mambo OS project was not the same code that Sakic wrote for Furthermore;" and "Emir Sakic developed a way to do the same thing dynamically and committed it to the Mambo core." -- The code committed to Mambo was done under contract and paid for by the Literati Group. The contract stipulates that "Upon finished project all copyright rights to code written by [Sakic] will belong to literatigroup.com."

This reply means absolutely nothing. It's not even on topic of what it's rebutting. The contract quoted is irrelevant because he is not contributing the copyrighted code. He is contributing different code. The fact that the person bringing these charges never even looked at the other code is unbelievable. From the Newsforge article "Connolly admits that he has not compared the code for himself, or even looked at the Mambo code to verify that it contains code developed specifically for Furthermore." Ok he's saying you stole my stuff, but I haven't looked at my stuff or your stuff, I just believe you did and therefore it's true. Go work for CBS. Regarding the rest of it, it seems that he is confusing copyright with patents. You can copyright specific code, but not the function of that code. There may be 10 ways to draw a circle on a screen. You copyright your code to do that. Maybe you use arc functions. Someone else does the same thing pixel by pixel. Someone else calls a draw line function with a length of 1 pixel. All of them may produce identical results however the copyright holder can not sue the second two parties and claim infringement because the resulting output is the same. This is where software patents come into play, and he does not to my knowledge have a patent on the format. It would be shot down by prior art if he did. So what he is almost admitting to is sure, the code is different, but the result is the same, and therefore it's infringement. Not under copyright law it's not.

11. "Mambo users are safe. [BUT] Nothing can stop Connolly from making good on his public threats to sue innocent end-users -- anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason -- but the legal basis for such action is nonexistent." -- Incorrect. Mambo users are not safe, per se. And that's not a consequence of the wildly erroneous "anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason" assertion. On filing a claim, an attorney certifi

Re:Connolly replies...

[zurab]

From that response:

Jem then argues that the "competitor" was in the process of "reverse engineering." However, reverse engineering would still require the permission of the copyright holder.

No, it wouldn't (IANAL).

Re:Connolly replies...

[Anonymous Coward]

5. "The code committed to the Mambo OS project was not the same code that Sakic wrote for Furthermore;" and "Emir Sakic developed a way to do the same thing dynamically and committed it to the Mambo core."

-- The code committed to Mambo was done under contract and paid for by the Literati Group. The contract stipulates that "Upon finished project all copyright rights to code written by [Sakic] will belong to literatigroup.com."

===
This reply is a complete non-sequitur. The original quote says that whatever code Sakic contributed to Mambo, it was not code that he wrote under contract for Connolly. Connolly's rebuttal is that Sakic signed a contract that all code Sakic did write for Connolly (importantly, not the code he contributed to Mambo) was to have the copyright assigned to Connolly.

This response could be completely true and it would have no bearing on the truth of the claim that it is supposed to be a response to!

But Connolly does get one thing right - making a derivative work does not automatically place your new code under the GPL. You always have the option of not distributing it. It is only when you distribute that you face a dilemma: either place your code under the GPL, or violate the copyright of whoever wrote the original work from which yours derives. You do always have the choice.

Re:Connolly replies...

[rewt66]

I read his reply. He does all right until his fourth point, where he says, "However, reverse engineering would still require the permission of the copyright holder."

This is total baloney. You only need permission of the copyright holder if you are copying, or if you are creating a derivative work within the meaning of the copyright law. It's not enough to say, "It does the same thing, it's by the same guy, so it must be a derivative." Reverse engineering is almost certainly not going to create a derivative work in copyright terms.

Now, reverse engineering could get you in trouble with patents. And if the same person did the work, there could be trade secret issues. But Connolly didn't argue those points; he yelled about copyrights. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Copyright only applies if someone copies something. If I understand correctly, Salik says he didn't copy anything; he re-wrote it.

In point 5, Connolly claims, "The code committed to Mambo was done under contract and paid for by the Literati Group." If this is true, that's a big no-no. But if the code committed to Mambo does the same thing as the code written for Literati, but is in fact different code, re-written from scratch (it's only a few lines), then Connolly has nothing contractually to lean on.

Moving on to point 9: Connolly claims that the GPL doesn't require you to redistribute. This is true. What the GPL requires is that, if you distribute the program in any form, you must also distribute the source under the GPL. If you leave the program in-house running your web site, you don't have to distribute the code at all, ever, to anyone, under the GPL or under any other terms.

The questions are: First, did Salik contribute original code to Mambo, or did he contribute the code he wrote under contract for Literati or a derivative thereof? (Note well: "He wrote the one, and then he wrote the other, and they do the same things, so the second must be a derivative" is a fallacious argument.) And second, did Literati distribute the program under any terms to anybody, and does the program contain GPL'd code that is not owned by Literati? (Note that Literati can GPL a version of their code, and ship a version that contains the same code plus other code, without having to GPL all the code in the second version, as long as all the GPL'd code in the second version is owned by themselves.)

Re:Connolly replies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do the people involved in this all appear to be 12 years old?

Re:Connolly replies...

[ValourX]

Yes, and never mind the fact that I never said anything about the perceived competitior trying to reverse engineer anythingn TFA. Connolly made that up and then spun it in his direction, as he has done and continues to do.

-Jem

Re:Connolly replies...

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of us not particularly familiar with Mambo or such....

what exactly is it? And why did he have to hire some out-of-company developer to write a total of 9 lines of code? I mean, I know a few languages can move the world in 9 lines of code...but...PHP?

This is how much annoyance and trouble per line of code?

Re:Connolly replies...

[einhverfr]

IANAL

But it occurs to me that anyone who alleges copyright infringement without actually looking at the code involved is not worth giving the time of day to.

Can we tell this guy to come back when he has actually compared the code or had someone else do so? IANAL, but I think that this sounds like a completely baseless claim until such a time as the code comparison is done. Ideally, some Gates-type analysis should be done too (filtering out the unprotectable elements before the full comparison is done).

Re:Connolly replies...

[mitchy]

"Moving on to point 9: Connolly claims that the GPL doesn't require you to redistribute. This is true. What the GPL requires is that, if you distribute the program in any form, you must also distribute the source under the GPL. If you leave the program in-house running your web site, you don't have to distribute the code at all, ever, to anyone, under the GPL or under any other terms."

If he says he never distributed 'his' Mambo, Mr. Connolly is lying through his teeth. He was distributing Mambo from his very site, under the GPL, up until a few weeks ago.

WayBack Machine failed to cache, but we got a screenshot of his download page at least!

Re:Connolly replies...

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually think this is irrelevant.

The question should be not is this a gpl violation but is there any evidence to show that the code is the same or even similar.

If the code isnt the same then everything else about the GPL is mute.

At best Connolly may have a case against Sakic for breach of contract but as the existance of this contract is also unproven.....

Re:Connolly replies...

[gl4ss]

*At best Connolly may have a case against Sakic for breach of contract but as the existance of this contract is also unproven.....*

also.. does furthermore have some stuff to read usually? like actual content?

well, doesn't stop them from taking donations('support the cause', what fucking cause? only thing i see on the site is references to this debate).

Re:Connolly replies...

[sparkz]

I've not heard of Mambo until now, but I do understand the GPL...
Newsforge say:

The red herring
When Connolly first put up his Furthermore demo site, he noticed that his server logs showed that a perceived competitor had downloaded about 20MB worth of data from his site. Connolly immediately interpreted this as wholesale code theft when, in fact, he had no reason to believe that any theft had taken place. The competitor was in the process of designing a site around Mambo OS and, like Furthermore, also employed the lead story block.

No mention of what was shown in these logs - if these logs were calling pure-library (non-HTML) PHP code from his site, I'd call that direct use of his code.

However, LiberatiGroup says:

The code committed to Mambo was done under contract and paid for by the Literati Group. The contract stipulates that "Upon finished project all copyright rights to code written by [Sakic] will belong to literatigroup.com."

If Sakic was contracted to modify GPL'd code under these conditions, that term of the contract must be void, as LiteratiGroup do not have the rights to enforce that term.

How does the GPL's use of "linking" relate here? That is, of course, for lawyers and (good) expert witnesses. But it's pretty clear that if I put a "virtual(http://yoursite.example.com/yourlibrary.p hp) line into "my" code, that I'm linking to your library. In C terms, it a static or dynamic link?

LiteratiGroup dismiss a Newsforge explanation of GPL with:

-- This confuses copyright and GPL. GPL does not automatically rob one of their copyrights.

The GPL relies upon copyright; without (c), the GPL would be meaningless. Adding (c) code to GPL'd (c) code is only possible by accepting the terms of the GPL.

LiteratiGroup replies:

BOTTOM LINE: THERE IS NO DUTY TO REDISTRIBUTE MODIFIED GPL CODE.

This is true.

I asked RMS about this quite directly back in 2001, as a hypothetical question about webhosted software: http://steve-parker.org/articles/lego/rms1.shtml

Re:Connolly replies...

[Arker]

Also keep in mind that we're apparently talking about less than a half dozen lines of code, doing something rather obvious that can't really be done too many different ways. It's my understanding that this is probably not copyrightable to begin with.

Re:Connolly replies...

[X]

If Sakic was contracted to modify GPL'd code under these conditions, that term of the contract must be void, as LiteratiGroup do not have the rights to enforce that term.

Not at all. The GPL doesn't in any way effect who has copyright to the code.

The GPL relies upon copyright; without (c), the GPL would be meaningless. Adding (c) code to GPL'd (c) code is only possible by accepting the terms of the GPL.

True. True. False. Accepting the source or the binary if you are NOT the copyright holder requires accepting the terms of the GPL (unless the code is available under another license from the copyright holder). However, the copyright holder is not bound to accept the GPL unless they distribute their copyrighted work as a derivative work of other code that the copyright holder was licensed under the terms of the GPL.

Re:Connolly replies...

[arkanes]

It's worth noting that the (c) convention, to my knowledge, doesn't have any legal force. The actual copyright symbol or the word "Copyright" is supposed to be spell out. That said, I can't imagine that a reasonable court wouldn't decide that "(c)" is sufficent, but it's not listed on the Copyright Offices website as one of the 3 standard forms. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#fnv

Re:Connolly replies...

[Rheingold]

It's relevant to the extent that if either assertion is true, the other is moot (NB: not mute) and Connolly's case falls on its face. It would seem that Furthermore redistributing the modified code would be easier to discover, since a code comparison relys on Connolly providing his code.

Missing link to MamboServer.com?

[mitchy]

Good thing they didn't provide a link to www.mamboserver.com, as that would certainly get the server slashdotted.

They provided links all over the place, and many of them to boot, but I find it strange that they link to everyone involved in the story but Mambo. Sure am glad they didn't link to www.mamboserver.com, which just happens to be the official site of Mambo.

innocent smile.

Article is mostly crap

[jhoger]

The author doesn't seem to understand how the GPL works.

If I make changes to a GPL'ed work, they are my changes. I own the copyright. I don't own the copyright to the entire work, but I own my changes. Imagine my changes as a diff file with a copyright on it.

If I distribute it, the GPL requires that I license my copyrighted code under the GPL.

The author completely misses this point, and in fact makes the assertion that if you derive a work from GPLed code that your work is automatically GPLed. This is a common fallacy. I can't believe it made Newsforge as such.

The only issue here is whether a) the code was copied such that it is close enough to be considered infringement and b) whether Connelly distributed the code outside of his organization.

If either are untrue, Connelly has no case.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[jhoger]

Fixing my twisted broken logic at the end there is left as an excercise for the reader

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Anonymous Coward]

The developer should have clarified his situation at the start. He should have requested from the person paying him, a declaration of whether those code changes would be distributed or kept in private use only.

What was the claim about Connelly distributing Mambo from his own web site? Was he distributing his modified version, or the original GPL version?

That would have to be the real deciding factor, rather than how many GPL supporters felt outraged.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Anonymous Coward]

why should the developer have done that. Its NOT the same code.

The main issue here is not the GPL per se but the harrasment and abusive emails and phonecalls received by mambo users. One even had a visit from the FBI at Connoly's instigation.

IF Connoly and Furthermore really believe that they have a strong case they should take it to a court of law. If they are so confident that they are right what have they to lose

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Rasta Prefect]

The author completely misses this point, and in fact makes the assertion that if you derive a work from GPLed code that your work is automatically GPLed. This is a common fallacy. I can't believe it made Newsforge as such.

Actually, I believe such a derived work is automatically GPL'd. However, the GPL only requires distribution of source to those who get binaries. So if you don't give away the binaries, you're under no obligation to give away the source.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[JohnnyGTO]

I believe there are several threads at maboserver and mambers that show conclusivelyhe was distributing the code himself.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[ValourX]

RTFA. The code between the two derivative works that create lead story blocks is not the same code.

RTFA. Owning the copyright to GPL code means little other than the fact that you get credit for it.

RTFA. The code was not copied. The code in Mambo does not belong to Connolly in any way shape or form.

-Jem

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious, the FBI ? If I did that I would be the one they arrest!

Re:Article is mostly crap

[jhoger]

>RTFA.
I did, I even read the whole thing :-) That's how I know you're wrong. Grow up a little and admit your mistakes.

> The code between the two derivative works that create lead story blocks is not the same code.

I'm not arguing this point at all. My issue is with your interpretation of the GPL.

You may be wrong there too... you don't have to make a verbatim copy to be infringing. It's actually fairly complex in that regard.

>RTFA.
I did, stop saying that!

> Owning the copyright to GPL code means little other than the fact that you get credit for it.

Sweet Jesus! It means a heckuvalot more than that. Let me count the ways:

It means you own the work, which in turn means that you can license it under any and as many licenses as you like. It means you can sue someone for infringment if they make a copy without a license that allows it (and if they violate the GPL and you license under the GPL, that person may not have any license to distribute). It means you can sell your work, make copies without worrying about licensing etc.

No, owning copyright on a GPLed work is *very* important.

Now in this case, owning copyright on a small patch to a GPLed work is certainly of less value than if you had written the whole thing from scratch since other parties have ownership claims on parts of the collective work which you have to respect.

> RTFA.
Come on, I did read it, quit it already!

> The code was not copied. The code in Mambo does not belong to Connolly in any way shape or form.

I didn't say the code was copied, I made no assertion as to that in any way. Please reread my comment.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Anonymous Coward]

very serious although once things were explained to them they walked away. Still very frightening to have the FBI come calling

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're just automatically committing copyright infringement if you distribute the derived work under something other than the GPL (given certain assumptions).

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I read TFA, and it seems there IS a way Connolly has a case.

Agreed, the codes are not related in any way derivation-wise. Disagree, owning the copyright on GPL'd works means you can decide whether or not to license it to anyone at all (you just have to license it under the GPL when you do). Disagree, some companies have draconian contracts that basically state that they own any creative output from your mind that occurs during the term of the contract, REGARDLESS of whether you do it in your own time or if it's even related to what you're working on.

This, I believe, is Connolly's take. His opinion is that this code was written while the author was under crazy contract. Crazy contract says ANY code written while under said contract belongs to the corporation--the author and the copyright holder are not the same thing in this particular case. Author distributes Mambo code under the GPL, but he does not have the right to do it (he's not the copyright holder and he did not receive a license to redistribute from the corporation. The corporation owns the copyright, but because the code is GPL'd, they must release it under the GPL--so they decide to never release it. They are just suing someone for leaking their code without the proper authority.

Not that that isn't a stanky horrible way to do things. I certainly hope such contracts are not legally enforceable. But considering the two sets of code do roughly the same thing, Connolly could reasonably argue that methods learned while working on one were used in working on the other, and that the two are related enough for the contract to apply. Of course, Connolly is making this out to be out-and-out theft in the media, instead of a "we screwed one of our developers with a nasty contract", but that's only natural, isn't it?

Lesson: don't ever sign a contract like that. Duh.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Anonymous Coward]

And where is this signed contract?
Connolly has never produced it despite being given ample opportunity by the Mambo Developers and Miro ,the copyright holder, to do so.

He cant produce it as according to Sakic, the programmer, there never was a signed contract.

At most there was an email exchange to establish a schedule of work and the level of remuneration but that does not constitute a contract or an NDA.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[spacefrog]

I don't think so.

Taken directly from the GPL FAQ:

The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed ... to all third parties." Who are these third parties?

Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.

The developer in question is not an employee of Furthermore, so this is not "distribution within a single company" which is explicitly allowed. If anything, it was a distribution between a contractor/contractee, which further in the GPL FAQ you will see is considered distribution.

This does not even bring into account the fact that these changes could easily qualify as a derrivitive work, which would make this seemingly simple case all that much simpler.

The author doesn't seem to understand how the GPL works.

By author, I would assume you mean yourself.

Perhaps Furthermore has a case, but it would be a contract dispute with the developer he hired.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[gr8_phk]

"Why?"

Because the GPL offers you the freedom to do what you like with the code for your own use. This is not something granted by the GPL, it's preserved by the GPL. Forcing you to release derivative works is absurd. Everyone who's ever done an experimental modification of GPLed code would be obligated to distribute that modification. People customize stuff all the time. Who exactly should they distribute those customizations to and as you asked "Why?".

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Anonymous Coward]

The contract is what Connolly needs to produce in order to make his case. It's the only way. If he can't produce it, he loses.

But that seems to be the argument he's making. And, in fact, the only argument that could ever stand a chance of winning.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[jhoger]

Ah, you actually make a valid point that I missed, about contractors. Here's the section of the "GPL FAQ" (which btw, is not the GPL, so it's a little suspect)

That is interesting. Keep in mind that my point still stands; I said that Connelly's case hinges on whether the programmer infringed on his copyright, and whether he distributed the code or not. If by default employing an off-site contractor you automatically are considered under the GPL to be distributing the work, then yes, he distributed it, end of story, as long as the GPL does say that, and a court would enforce it.

Here is the section of the GPL FAQ for folks to look at on their own:

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.

However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be an ass, but that is wrong. The code is only GPL'd if it is redistributed. The relevant quote from the GPL license.
"
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

* a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

* b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
"

There, a priori, is no required licensing for derived works - those are yours. The "automatically GPL'd" part is when you redistribute the code. So, if you are giving your work to others, you must use the GPL license.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Michael Woodhams]

OK, here is a hypothetical situation:

Alice is a contractor. She modifies a GPL program under contract for BigCorp. She sends a copy of the modifications to BigCorp.

Alice has distributed the code to BigCorp, so she has no legal right to complain should BigCorp distribute it further, so long as BigCorp do so under the GPL.

Now say Alice's contract says that she will not distribute her modifications to anyone else. Is this legal/enforcable? Did Alice have the right to modify the code while bound by such a restriction?

Re:Article is mostly crap

[theLOUDroom]

That's a really interesting concept.

So Alice gets this program under the GPL and modifies it. She Must distribute it under the GPL.

...BUT she only distributes it to the company that hired her. That company then never distributes it further, thus it remains "closed".

At first glance it seems that this is kind of a looophole in the GPL, but I think it *might* be covered by various "non-discrimination" clauses in the GPL.
OR as you suggested, perhaps there is a clause which prohibits her from distibuting the code at all while bound by such restrictions. (This would very likely be near the anti-patent provisons.)

Of course, if the company ever sends her a copy of her own code, it would seem like she could automatically distribute it, since the only way the company could legally send it out would be under the GPL liscense.

Maybe I'll go read the GPL one more time...

Re:Article is mostly crap

[mmurphy000]

Owning the copyright to GPL code means little other than the fact that you get credit for it.

Consolidating copyrights is highly recommended for large open source projects, so they can adjust to new licenses over time. This is why OpenOffice.org, for example, requires a Joint Copyright Assignment be signed, so the project can release the code under all relevant licenses. This is why Mozilla, when they decided to add GPL/LGPL to their license mix, had such a huge headache, because they didn't consolidate copyrights, and so they had to track down each developer and get them to authorize the relicensing.

Now, to be sure, the GPL means that non-copyright-holders have a whole lot more rights than they do under, say, a Microsoft EULA. But that doesn't mean holding copyright is useless.

This is why jhoger's comments were spot-on. If Furthermore has a contract with the developer, and if the contract called for copyright assignment and, if the code change submitted to Mambo can reasonably be determined to be covered under that contract, and if the contract itself is fundamentally valid (e.g., incldues consideration), then Furthermore would hold copyright to that code change. If Furthermore didn't want it distributed, then the contractor is in violation of Furthemore's copyright to the code change. If Furthermore distributed the code, then the GPL might ruin their case anyway, but if the only distribution was done by the contractor, Furthermore's right to keep the code change internal to their organization was violated, a right they have under the GPL.

In effect, this is a watered-down version of the whole SCO situation: a firm claims a contract grants them rights over code that, according to others, was independently developed. As with SCO, it mostly hinges on the interpretation of the contract (and, in this case, whether said contract exists, since that's under dispute).

Furthermore's handling of this situation is disgusting, but until a court determines the existence, validity, and scope of the contract, we can't just assume Furthermore has no case, any more than we can assume SCO has no case, even though it kinda looks that way (thank heavens).

Re:Article is mostly crap

[spacefrog]

According to the documentation provided, this 'new version' was also distributed to 'registered users only' for a period of time, although that is claimed to have been 'short'. He even admitted to that, and tried to justify it with some crap about how it was only to registered users.

That is a dead giveaway to be bound under the GPL right there, the fact he tries to claim it "doesn't count" as it was only to 'registered users' only undermines his own ignorance.

The way I see this, the already GPL software in question was most definately and intentionally distributed in some capacity, both by the programmer (as a contractor to his client, which is not covered as an 'exception') and by this asshat to whomever 'qualified' to be a 'registered user'. In either case, this is distribution and invokes the GPL's full wrath.

As far as the 'validity' of the GPL FAQ, while I'm sure it is not error-free, it comes from the same group of legal scholars (and their assistants) that gave us the GPL. While I am sure not perfect, they know it better then any of us. I readily trust their interpretation better then anybody except Moglen's.

I find it impossible to believe that any court, anywhere, is going to see an exceedingly minor modification to an existing source code file as anything but being a derivative. This could never be argued to be anything except a direct modification to an existing work, which by definition, almost guarantees it's place as a derivative.

Sorry for the 'author' crack at the end, I was expecting a troll, not somebody who was going to respond in relevence.

cheers,
e.l. aka spacefrog

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Michael Woodhams]

Assuming all this is so, I think a final step is required in the chain. The existence of people who can legally distribute Connolly's code does not imply that Sakic has a legally distributable copy.

Sakic needs to get a copy of his code from (directly or indirectly) one of the 'registered users', who, via the GPL, have the right to redistribute it.

This may require some persuading and legal indemnification, as the 'registered users' know that Connolly is litigation-happy and may come after them.

Possibly Sakic would need to resubmit his controversial Mambo contribution after receiving this code - ask a lawyer.

Off course, all this is moot if the Mambo code is not derivative of the Connolly code.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[JohnnyGTO]

Well we can only hope Brian gets the visit he deserves for wasting the FBI's VERY precious time!

Re:Article is mostly crap

[X]

I'm not sure what assumptions you are referring to, but according to the GPL you just have to ensure that give users the same freedoms they have under the GPL. It's a subtle and not to important distinction, but worth mentioning.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[julesh]

Interesting situation. I think this is acceptable under the GPL, but note:

1. If BigCorp ever distribute a copy of her derivitive work back to her, they are distributing it under the terms of the GPL and are then not allowed to enforce any contracts that further restrict Alice's actions under the GPL, so she can distribute it on in this case.

2. This is all subject to the courts' interpreatation of "within a single organisation". I'm aware that they may extend this to include contractors -- British courts certainly have.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[julesh]

This wouldn't actually help a huge amount. It would stop any future distribution from being copyright infringement, but he would still be liable for any infringement the court decided he was responsible for up to the moment he received the copy.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[julesh]

As far as the 'validity' of the GPL FAQ, while I'm sure it is not error-free, it comes from the same group of legal scholars (and their assistants) that gave us the GPL. While I am sure not perfect, they know it better then any of us. I readily trust their interpretation better then anybody except Moglen's.

You have to consider, while reading it, that the answers are to questions about generic situations. Any small detail and assumption, which may or may not have been explicitly stated (it's written with the intention of avoiding legalese, therefore a lot of assumptions aren't stated), may change the answer in a specific situation.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[julesh]

The developer in question is not an employee of Furthermore, so this is not "distribution within a single company" which is explicitly allowed. If anything, it was a distribution between a contractor/contractee, which further in the GPL FAQ you will see is considered distribution.

There is a problem with this argument. The developer is not the owner of the copyright in question. This means that his distribution of it to Connoly cannot grant anyone any rights to it under the GPL. Only Connoly has the legal power to do that, as the copyright was assigned to him.

This would be equivalent to me taking a copy of the Windows source code that was leaked, integrating it into a "Windows subsystem" of Linux, then sending a copy of it to someone and claiming that because it was distributed under the GPL, anyone is now allowed to distribute it. I don't own the copyright to Windows, so I cannot grant you that right.

The Mambo developer doesn't own the copyright to the modification he made for Connoly, so nothing he did can grant anyone rights over it. Only things that Connoly does.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Phong]

If by default employing an off-site contractor you automatically are considered under the GPL to be distributing the work, then yes, he distributed it

That isn't what the GPL FAQ is talking about. It is talking about GPL code that has been modified in-house to create a program that is run in-house. If that program is given to a contractor "for use off-site" (emphasis added), that is considered distribution. Having a contractor modify some GPL code for you to use in an in-house application is not distribution. Of course, to obey the full letter of the law and not just its spirit, you should have the contractor create the modified version for you using an editor on your own system (i.e. not have the contractor create the modifications off-site and then copy them to your system).

Re:Article is mostly crap

[arkanes]

Assuming that BigCorps legal staff isn't totally imcompetent, then Alice's contract with them will specify that this is a work for hire, with all copyrights belonging to BigCorp. So in copyright terms, Alice never has any rights to the code, and her sending it over to BigCorp when she's done isn't "distribution" any more than handing a CD back to someone that dropped it is.

In this particular case the claim is that the donated code is NOT the same - if it is, then there's possibly a problem. On the other hand, the description of the code is that it's minimal, and it may not qualify for copyright protection regardless. I come down very much against Connelly (sp?) on this though - he's said so much stuff that outright isn't true, and his admitted claim that he didn't even check his code against the code from from Mambo before raising a fuss makes it pretty clear that he's more interested in the fuss than anything else.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[Rasta Prefect]

...no, actually, that was my sig.

Re:Article is mostly crap

[gr8_phk]

" ...no, actually, that was my sig."

I feel stupid now.

Thanks... ;-)

Furthermore says: It's not over yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Connolly isn't done yet. See http://www.literatigroup.com/versusmambo/content/v iew/60/46/ for details.

Re:Furthermore says: It's not over yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about Brian "ego monkey" Connolly and his bullshit business? Fuck him and his business partners for terrorizing the community.

That was certainly a mistake...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bad idea it was to get SCO involved on his side...

Re:That was certainly a mistake...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Haha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is: never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is this: never go in on an intellectual property case with SCO on your side! Ha ha ha..."

Yet another Mambo

[dbIII]

I take it this is not the Mambo with the shirts depicting farting dogs?

Re:Yet another Mambo

[AndroidCat]

Oh? Got a link? (It seems almost like something they'd write on the Counterweight Continent.)

Re:Yet another Mambo

[cranos]

I think he's refering to this

No not the counterwieght continent, more around the lost continent of XXXX.

"Theft"

[Peaker]

Is not applicable to information. Please use accurate wording.

Re:"Theft"

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but in Business Law 101 back in college, we learned that theft is "taking something with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the object." (That's a paraphrase.) That is why special statutes had to be enacted to make the teenage custom stealing a car in order to drive it around and leave it by the side of the road ("joy riding") explictly illegal, since it isn't considered theft.

There seems to be a missing link in the argument

[Michael Woodhams]

(IANAL)

"Copyright infringement is a broader term and would seem to be a better fit for this situation; after all, the contract called for all copyrights to be assigned to Furthermore, Inc. But the code was a derivative of GPL-licensed code, thereby making it a derivative work of the parent code and automatically licensing it under the GNU General Public License."

But doesn't the GPL only take effect if the code is distributed? Connolly employed someone to modify GPLed code, for his own use. Doesn't he have exclusive rights to those modifications so long as he never distributes the modified program? The article establishes that using the code to generate his site does not distribute the code.

It might matter whether Sakic wrote Connolly's code as an employee (I can't remember the legal phrase - "work under contract"?) or as a separate entity who then distributed the code to Connolly.

The GPL says that if I modify a GPLed program *and distribute it*, anyone I distribute it to has the right to the modified source, and to make additional modifications and distributions. This doesn't look to be the situation here.

If we regard Sakic as the creator and copyright holder, then he distribited the code to Connolly. By default, he has the right to also distribute the code elsewhere. Could he be contractually prevented from doing so? Was he contractually prevented from doing so in this case? (If no contract was signed, this might not put him in the clear. Who knows what the 'default' situation is.)

On the other hand, if Connolly's company is the creator and copyright holder (rather than Sakic), then Sakic has broken copyright if he distributed the company's code.

(Reminder: Connolly would have to prove that his code could not legally be redistributed *and* that the code in Mambo contains/is derived from his code. I am only addressing the first issue.)

Is there a copyright lawyer in the house?

Thats strange

[Timesprout]

I was not aware news sites had taken to issuing legally binding decisions. This piece is nothing more than an opinion, to imply it is 'definitive' resolution of the disagreement is highly misleading.

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[turnstyle]

"They probably stole this guy's code, though"

It is interesting that the Slashdot headline focuses on "that Connolly's legal threats against innocent Mambo users are baseless" and SCO's involvement, but doesn't seem to question whether code was taken.

Well, was it?

Re:There seems to be a missing link in the argumen

[Anonymous Coward]

The missing link is that the two pieces of code are different.

Mr. Connely's Problem

[deck]

Mr Connely's problem is that he does not have exclusive use of a feature added to Mambo OS after that feature was added to his version of Mambo OS. From what I have read, it appears that the person, a Mambo developer, that coded it for Furthermore went back and re-coded it for the general Mambo OS but did it differently. While Mr. Matzan may miss a point on the GPL his analysis otherwise is good. Mr. Connely on the otherhand appears to be another Darell McBride (TSG) with his demand for the whole of the Mambo OS codebase.

Re:Mr. Connely's Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mr Connely's problem is that he does not have exclusive use of a feature added to Mambo OS after that feature was added to his version of Mambo OS."

Actually, if it was HIS modification he does have exclusive use of it until HE gives it to someone else - at which point he must provide it under a GPL license.

Everybody be really really

[Anonymous Coward]

carefull here cause this dude plays rough!

I posted something in the mambers.com forum regarding the, in my opinion, likely outcome for "the man whose name we shall not speak" and he hit the ROOF.
20 minutes after the post he's on the phone scaring the tar out of a little old man with threats of a lawsuit.
I used the web address of a supplier in my online profile and the JACKASS starts harassing them!!!!

Of course I'm posting Anonymously!

Re:Everybody be really really

[AndroidCat]

Cool. I hope anyone who gets one of his cartoony phone call rants is set up to record the call and (local laws permiting) toss it up on a web site for all to enjoy.

Re:Everybody be really really

[Anonymous Coward]

Post it on Slashdot anonymously then -- we'd all like to hear it

Re:Everybody be really really

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey It's really easy to do, just go to a mambo forum and tell him exactly were to put his "code". Then duck!

Re:Everybody be really really

[Some Bitch]

I told him to go blow a goat. He don't email me no more now :(

Banana boots

[Celsius10]

I wonder, will Brian Connolly wear these in court?

--

Anybody read this as...

[llamaluvr]

...Zombo Users are Free and Clear?

I personally am really glad that I can keep using Zombo.com. I can do anything there!

SCO are the big guys?

[dbIII]

"SCO and IBM are the big guys", Connelly was quoted as saying in the article. I find this funny, even before SCO went down its path to self destruction in the last year it employed less people and probably had less turnover than the average suburban shopping mall. IBM is a few orders of magnitude beyond that.

Re:SCO are the big guys?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but it puffs Darl up and makes him feel good when somebody lumps him in with the "big guys". It's all about spreading warm fuzzies throughout the world, people!

Re:SCO are the big guys?

[gregmac]

IBM is a few orders of magnitude beyond that.

350,000 globally, according to a presenter from IBM I saw at a conference last week.

frm

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who has not read the forum postings and public communications between Connoly and mambo cannot really understand what is happening. Once you read the forums, the case is clear cut. It is sad that nobody used these public communications to end this story earlier.

GPL and Redistribution

[techsoldaten]

This is a question about the GPL, no flames, please. In the Connolly's response, he blathers:

-- Moglen's quote is misapplied. BOTTOM LINE: THERE IS NO DUTY TO REDISTRIBUTE MODIFIED GPL CODE. The code was redistributed improperly by the Mambo project as it was gotten without Furthermore's permission. This also makes derivative(s) an unlawful by-product.
------------------

IANAL, but Connolly raises an interesting question about the GPL and the ASP loophole. If someone writes derivative code based on a GPL'ed work and refuses to distribute it (in other words, they provide the code as a service without giving copies to anyone), who really owns that new code? Doesn't the GPL kick in when and only when someone distributes code?

This seems like a gray area to me. Potentially, someone could build a derivative work of a GPL'ed project and not have to release the changes under the GPL if they never release the changes at all. What does this mean about ownership of the new code?

M

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a great area to you is very clear to anyone who knows the law and has read the gpl

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[radish]

It's not a loophole at all.

If I take a GPL program and modify it I own the modifications. There is never any doubt in that, the fact that it is GPL'd is not important - I always own the code I write (notwithstanding employment contracts etc).

All the GPL says is that if I take a GPL program and modify it, I must license the new version under the GPL also. That's it. So I still own the modifications, I just have to license them under the GPL. Fine. (I can even license them under some other license as well if I want, but the GPL has to be in there somewhere).

Does that mean I have to distribute it? Of course not. The GPL doesn't say that. The GPL simply says that _if_ I distribute binaries I also have to distribute source, to the same people who got the binaries. If I _don't_ distribute binaries (as in your example) then I don't have to distribute source, so in essence the GPL is redundant in this case.

Remember - the GPL is moot until I distribute something.

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[techsoldaten]

Here's my case, GPL quoted to save anyone from looking it up:

--- (selectively quoting what supports my argument...) ---

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ...

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

--------------------

The only restrictions placed on licensing come as part of a discussion about redistribution. The GPL says you must release any work that you redistribute to be free, not that any derivative works you make must be free.

There does not appear to a restriction on licensing for people who are not distributing their work. Anyone could claim any kind of license they want on a derivative work of a GPLed project.

Show me where I am wrong.

M

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[gr8_phk]

If you give the executable to someone, you must provide code. If you provide code, it must be under a GPL license. Connolly seems to be claiming (possibly so) that he did neither. Ownership of the new code (not the existing GPLed bits) belongs to the creator, who presubably assigned that ownership to Connolly in this case.

Now, since the code was HTML and Connolly's server distributed it to people looking at the pages... that may be a real problem for him now that I think about it. OTOH, did it really hand out the changes to the code?

Could this be a case of the server spitting out hardcoded HTML and then claiming theft of that? That would be like claiming copyright on the form of a text. If that is his claim, then he'd be arguing that the output of a GPLed program is a derivative work. In that case, wouldn't all his web pages with programmatic modifications have to be GPLed? My thoughts are drifting way off here...

Oh ya, IANAL

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[techsoldaten]

The whole issue has to do with redistributing the code. I think this is actually a sneak attack on the GPL, and someone is trying to make an end run by saying the GPL doesn't count if the person with the rights chooses not to redistribute the code.

If all an author has to do is claim he did not intend to release code for people to be liable for damages (or that someone stole the code and released it) the GPL becomes meaningless.

M

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing ownership with licensing. The GPL is a license; in order for it to be a valid license, there must be two parties. When you redistribute the code, part of the LICENSE for your use is that you must redistribute it under the GPL LICENSE.

However, the ownership - copyrights - are still yours, even if you redistribute it. So, MySql may own the code to MySQL, but the license between you and them is the GPL license. Microsoft owns Windows, but their license is FAR more restrictive.

So, if Connelly OWNS the code, then there's a good chance Mambo illegally redistributed it. If Connelly did not have the copyright to the code (aka, the programmer was not a "work for hire") or if the code was independently implemented (not a copy of what is in Connelly's), Connelly does not own it - even if it has the same functionality. Implementations are covered by copyrights; patents cover methods. So, if you have a copyrighted program and I reverse-engineer (or re-implement it), your copyright does not extend to my work. That is exactly where Connelly is going wrong.

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[mdfst13]

"the GPL doesn't count if the person with the rights chooses not to redistribute the code" is a true statement. However, in this case, the code was distributed. The contractor distributed it to Connolly. As such, it is my opinion that *even if* the contractor had contributed *the identical code* (rather than new code) to Mambo, it still would have been GPLed. The fact that the contractor signed away his rights to the code is irrelevant; he could not sign away *Mambo's* rights (based on the code being a derivative work).

In this case, the contractor is actually using a different argument: that it's not the same code as what he sold to Connolly.

Connolly is not going to get damages from Mambo or anyone downstream of Mambo. Even if Connolly's claims had validity, at best, he could require them to take the code out. Any damages he would get would come from the programmer he hired.

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[gl4ss]

"furthermore" seems to denie ever distributing the code(in binary or source) and also alleges that they have a written contract that "Upon finished project all copyright rights to code written by [Sakic] will belong to literatigroup.com [Furthermore's parent company].".

however, it seems that they _did_ seem to distribute the source too and that sakic _didn't_ sign a contract. however, neither of these things matter if sakic(as he alleges?) just made a new implementation of the (ridiculously?) low number of lines needed. therefore getting the copyright to those for himself.

bottom line of course being that 'furthermore' HAS REALLY DONE NOTHING EXCEPT SHOT THEIR MOUTH OFF, if they got the proof what are they winning by hiding it?

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[M1FCJ]

Come on.... If your logic is true, then checking the code into a RCS would constitute as redistributing code. Contractor was contracted to do some work, in such cases copyright of the work belongs to the contractor, not contractee. "Distributing the code to the contractor" doesn't mean anything because they already own the code.

I work in an office far away from our head office. When I check code in to our RCS, do I distribute my code? Bollocks.

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[mdfst13]

Separate buildings and geographical distance are irrelevant. You and your head office are both parts of the same organization. In this case, the contractor was from outside Connolly's organization. The crossing of organizational boundaries is what makes it distribution. You can see the FSF's position on this at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalD istribution

To put it another way, did Connolly's company pay the contractor's social security? If not (and I would be very surprised if it did), then he was not an employee of the company. If he was not an employee of the company, then he had to distribute the code to get it to them. Remember, the company does *not* own all the code. Mambo owns most of it. The company owns a little piece that is only relevant when used with Mambo's code.

If Connolly's company owned the original code, it would be different. Then it could control the license under which it was distributed. However, all Connolly's company owned was a small modification to the original code (and not even the code that Mambo is distributing now, just similar code written by the same person). Thus, for the programmer to provide the code to the company, it had to go under the GPL to meet the copyright provisions. If that was unacceptable, then they shouldn't have started with Mambo.

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[radish]

But that's pretty much what I said?? Unless you distribute the GPL is moot. If you don't distribute, it doesn't matter. What I was saying is there's nothing forcing you to distribute mods just because the original work was GPL.

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[techsoldaten]

Yes, that is what you said. Just laying out the case another way for clarity.

M

Re:GPL and Redistribution

[Mike Lococo]

The loophole is the web. You can run a program on your own webserver and use it to provide access to that program for the public. You're distributing the function of the program without distributing the program itself. The Gnu organization says:

A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?

The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.

It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.

In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use.

See the link: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Unrelease dMods

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might notice that there are colored, underlined words in the submission. These are called "links" and lead to other websites if you click your left mouse button on them.

One of these "links" leads to something called "TFA", or, The Fucking Article for short. Reading TFA is optional before posting comments and opinions on it, but you're always encouraged to actually read TFA to help reduce the possibility of stupid questionitis.

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[Best ID Ever!]

If only there was some sort of article you could read that would explain it.

And if that goes over your head, here is a snip of reply from the code's author:

To summarize it:
1) The code delivered to Brian Connolly is not the same as the code implemented in Mambo.
2) The code delivered to Brian Connolly was derived from GPL, Copyright Miro International Pty.
3) Brian Connolly distributed copies of Mambo that had the so-called 'infringing' functionality under the GPL.
4) There are no copyright assignments with my signature on.
5) Brian Connolly has no trademarks or patents on anything resembling the disputed functionality.

Darn!

[El]

You just know that now Darell is saying "Darn, why didn't I think of that! All we had to do was hire Linus to add a custom feature to SCO Linux, then wait for a simular feature to be added to the Linux code base... we could have owned Linux!"

Connolly may be right

[gr8_phk]

"This means that even if it could be definitively said that Sakic created a derivative work of the code that he'd written for Furthermore, Connolly has no legal recourse for preventing its distribution or use."

This statement is not entirely correct. If I create a derivative work based on GPLed code and don't redistribute it, no one has the right to steal it from me and put my changes back into the original open source version. This guy who did the contract work (assuming there was a typical contract) signed over his ownership to the derivative work to Connelly. By keeping a local copy (which he should not have) and putting derivatives of that back into the main project, he may have effectively stole the code from his employer and put it under GPL.

IANAL, but people need to follow owership and distribution very closely. If there was no contract my limited understanding of these issues breaks down in a hurry - I would assume without proper assignment he can do whatever because it's actually his code but again IANAL.

It bothers me to see GPL proponents getting too carried away and assuming that the public has a right to use anything that came from GPLed work. I doubt the guy is right, but it would NOT be because of the GPL. It looks to me like it comes down to pure ownership in this case because Connelly never distributed any code.

IANAL, so please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Re:Connolly may be right

[mitchy]

Mr. Connolly was redistributing his version of Mambo on his own website, UNDER THE GPL, up until just a few weeks ago - where it suddenly and mysteriously disappeared.

I believe one of the Mambo core developers (not me though) has a screenshot of the download page.

Re:Connolly may be right

[theLOUDroom]

This statement is not entirely correct. If I create a derivative work based on GPLed code and don't redistribute it, no one has the right to steal it from me and put my changes back into the original open source version. This guy who did the contract work (assuming there was a typical contract) signed over his ownership to the derivative work to Connelly. By keeping a local copy (which he should not have) and putting derivatives of that back into the main project, he may have effectively stole the code from his employer and put it under GPL.

Actually there really isn't any way that this work ISN"T under the GPL.

As others have pointed out, the GPL specfically states that transmission between a organization and an "offsite contractor" constitutes distribution, and therefore must be done under the GPL liscense.

That means that the code he sent to his employer MUST have been GPL'ed or it was illegal for him to send it. This means that any copy of the code the employer has MUST be under the GPL.

The sticky part is whether this means that any other copies are ALSO under the GPL.

IANAL, so please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Nor am I, and I feel the question brought up really requires a lawyer to answer.
It definately seems against the "spirt" of the GPL for the resulting to code to be anything but GPL'ed, but that cases really seems to demand a detailed reading of the "letter" of the GPL.

There are tons of questions posed here. For example, by selling the rights to GPL'ed code that I have created, am I giving up my right to a GLP'ed copy of that code?

How can I have a legal copy of GPL-derived code from another organization, if not under the GPL?

If the company had sent him the code, he could distribute it under the GPL. If the code was not a work for hire, he could distribute iot under the GPL.
How then, does to code being a "work for hire" make his copy *NOT*, GPL'ed? Can he even legally create a "work for hire" with that code?

Of course here's another interesting point....
If his employer sent him a copy of his own code, even just ONCE. He has a right to distribute it under the GPL, or his employer send him his own code was illegal.

A couple of interesting points

[wrook]

As a few people have pointed out, the author of the article seems to have overstepped his bounds a bit. He's not really qualified to render a legal opinion. To state that Mr. Connelly is definitely in the wrong is a potentially dangerous thing. Especially given that he seems to be lawsuit happy.

That aside, I find this disagreement somewhat interesting for a few points.

First, I wonder what is copyrightable when it comes to code. For instance, if I wrote a sentence in an article of a magazine and then rewrote the sentence verbatim in another magazine, I don't think anyone would ever be able to sue you for copyright infringement. It's just a sentence. In this case, the code in question is only 9 lines (the equivelent of a sentence in a large book). At what point does this become protectable?

Second, if I hire someone to modify a GPL piece of code, I don't have to redistribute it. However, is it possible to stop the original author from distributing it? I have often wondered this. I mean, I can't stop him from having a copy and seemingly I can't bar him from his rights to do what he wants with that copy. In a sense, I have already distributed it. I can see that if I write the code myself it's a much more straightforward question.

In any case, I don't think I'll get any definitive answers to these questions this time around. Without pretending to know all the legal ins and outs here, I suspect that the code was never copied in the first place. The fact that Mr. Connelly has never even looked makes it fairly unlikely that it will ever get to trial.

Re:A couple of interesting points

[Anonymous Coward]

But he isnt law suit happy. Thats the whole point. Because he doesnt have a case that will stand up in law he resorts to abusive emails and phone calls to attempt to scare off the user.

If he did issue a law suit then this would all be settled very quickly and Connolly knows this which is why he hasnt issued one

Re:A couple of interesting points

[Tanktalus]

As a few people have pointed out, the author of the article seems to have overstepped his bounds a bit. He's not really qualified to render a legal opinion. To state that Mr. Connelly is definitely in the wrong is a potentially dangerous thing. Especially given that he seems to be lawsuit happy.

Right. But did newsforge really render a legal opinion? They implied it, but one of the <sarcasm>wonderful</sarcasm> things about the law is that they differentiate between what is said (legally binding) and what is left unsaid (ignored) but heavily implied.

In other interpretations of "definitive", if Jem is an expert in the technical aspects of the dispute, then a proclamation of "definitive" is just a pompous way of saying "I'm absolutely sure of myself."

In my (pompous) opinion, I think that Jem should have shown more professional restraint in choosing the terms used in the essay. More fuel for the fire was spread than fact, and I think there was a fair bit of fact there. A bit more calm would have produced the same information with a lot less useless bickering.

Re:A couple of interesting points

[Anonymous Coward]

With most standard programming contracts, the programmer is does "work for hire", and the copyrights are assigned to you, the owner/hirer. The programmer cannot distribute the code under the GPL (even if it is derived from the GPL) because he does not own the code. The flaw in your logic is that the programmer, in most cases, does not have rights to do what he wants with the code.

A common problematic practice in the industry is that programmers will keep libraries of code that they reuse often. Because the libraries of code may have been written while working for one company, the company owns the code (even though the programmer keeps it in his private collection). If the programmer uses that code for a project for a second company, then that company is infringing the copyrights of the first one.

Re:A couple of interesting points

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, if I wrote a sentence in an article of a magazine and then rewrote the sentence verbatim in another magazine, I don't think anyone would ever be able to sue you for copyright infringement. It's just a sentence.

Depends on the sentence. "Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the notion that all men are created equal." If that were in a book, don't you think it would merit copyright protection?

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity."

"To be, or not to be, that is the question: whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?"

I hope you can see how copyright infringement can certainly apply to very small segments of a greater work, so long as those small segments are in fact demonstratively... recognizable I guess.

Only if you erase it on the way out.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

"Theft" ... Is not applicable to information. Please use accurate wording.

I nearly agree with you. Unauthorized copying is not theft.

Taking the original, medium and all, is theft of the original.

Taking the information (whether an original and a copy) AND destroying all the copies in the possession of the original owner, is theft of the information.

The distinction between theft and unauthorized copying is that theft deprives the original owner as well as enriching the thief.

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[turnstyle]

If it's such an obviously silly case, then one question remains: can we all get Slashdotted by simply accusing somebody of something ridiculous?

I hereby want it to be known: Apache stole my code!

(sorry that I didn't give the article a thorough read)

Re:There seems to be a missing link in the argumen

[Michael Woodhams]

The article makes two claims: one is that the two pieces of code are different. I'm not disputing this.

The other is that even if they were the same, the GPL makes it OK. I am disputing this.

I.e. the article puts forth two planks: if either hold up, Mambo is safe. I think one of those planks is rotten.

Re:There seems to be a missing link in the argumen

[Ungrounded Lightning]

It might matter whether Sakic wrote Connolly's code as an employee (I can't remember the legal phrase - "work under contract"?) or as a separate entity who then distributed the code to Connolly.

The term is "Work for Hire".

Re:Parent and great-grandparent posts are crap

[Michael Woodhams]

I independently came to (and posted, although less succinctly) the same conclusions as jhoger.

Anonymous ad-hominem attacks vs logical argument - hm, which should I belive?

I suppose I've just become an astroturfer as well.

Good point and

[einhverfr]

IANAL, but....

I think that Sony v. Connectix sets a pretty strong precident for allowing reverse engineering provided that it is strictly a copyright case.

Re:Parent and great-grandparent posts are crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Don't argue with someone who has clear and cogent counterarguments and makes sense. It obvious you're totally unprepared for it.

"Astroturfer" doesn't even make sense as an insult in this case.

You people are getting even more pathetic than I thought possible if your best rebuttal to simple statements is "oh yeah!? I bet ur on their payroll!! Astr0turf3r!!!!111"

Congratulations, the ONLY thing you've accomplished today is to convince a few more people that you're an idiot.

Thanks for the tip!

[AndroidCat]

colspan="2" huh? Thanks, I wouldn't have thought to use that on my new pages. I'll get right to work.

The key word.

[trudyscousin]

"...involving the Mambo content management system and businessman Brian Connolly."

It's my belief that any good thing will have, at the root of its ruin, a businessman. History will back me up on this.

Re:The key word.

[lottameez]

you must be still living at home or getting paid in raisins and peanut butter.

we are all businessmen bubba. we all give society product for pay.

now, lawyers on the other hand...

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[gl4ss]

*Well, was it?* ... rtfa?

"To summarize it:
1) The code delivered to Brian Connolly is not the same as the code implemented in Mambo.
2) The code delivered to Brian Connolly was derived from GPL, Copyright Miro International Pty.
3) Brian Connolly distributed copies of Mambo that had the so-called 'infringing' functionality under the GPL.
4) There are no copyright assignments with my signature on.
5) Brian Connolly has no trademarks or patents on anything resembling the disputed functionality.
"

it wouldn't even matter if they were taken.

CORRECTION: Connolly redistributed Mambo

[mitchy]

This is asked over and over again, and I'd like to point out that Connolly was distributing Mambo from his own site up until a couple weeks ago, when his download page suddenly and mysteriously disappeared.

I believe one of the core developers (not me though) has a screenshot of his download page, and am certain that there are folks out there that dowloaded it.

Re:CORRECTION: Connolly redistributed Mambo

[julesh]

Was that his modified version, or the original unmodified one, though?

Re:CORRECTION: Connolly redistributed Mambo

[RipCurl808]

he was distributing the modified version through his website.

Well, this should be easy

[lottameez]

There is one big fat glaring disagreement between Sakic and Connelly that should make most of this pretty plain.

Sakic claims there was no contract. Connelly says there was.

My one semester of business law clearly makes me an expert, so here goes:

I suspect there was a contract. I suspect it said what Connelly said it does. My understanding is that in these kind of legal proceedings there has to be some "consideration", i.e, money or value changing hands. Sakic was paid to do a job. Then he gave away the results of that job, effectively removing any competitive value the task brought to connelly.

And let's face it, anybody who has ever written code (and then accidently deleted it) knows that it's real easy to write the same code the second time around.

Connelly, in my view, has a valid claim against Sakic since Connelly paid for the time Sakic took to complete the task and got very little value in return.

I don't see Connelly getting a lot of mileage (other than press) by threatening other mambo users. If the function is that simple, somebody other than Sakic should rewrite it (if someone hasn't already).

Re:Well, this should be easy

[DarrenR114]

I tend to disagree with you on one point - I don't believe there was a contract.

If there was a proper, written contract, then it would be a no-brainer for Connelly to show the world.

The fact that he refuses to make the contract available to the same people he conducts interviews with is a very telling act of omission.

Re:Well, this should be easy

[gl4ss]

***Connelly, in my view, has a valid claim against Sakic since Connelly paid for the time Sakic took to complete the task and got very little value in return.***

being suckered like that doesn't really make you have a claim(..and he got what he wanted for the money, an added feature). and the contract connelly claims that was there says (by connellys words) that his corp just gets all the _copyrights_(NOTHING MORE!) to the code. nothing about owning the ideas or anything like that(nor do they have any patents or anything similar).

so a simple rewrite around would leave sakic with code that he owns _all_ the rights for.

besides, if there was a contract that is valid to the case.. wtf is connelly shooting his mouth off when he could easily file for small claims or whatever to fuck sakic up? why isn't he doing anything concrete?(the answer is of course that he's afraid it would backfire, because he doesn't have a case of any kind- basically he seems like he thinks that he has patent like rights to the outcome of what the code outputs, quite silly)

rewrite by someone other than sakic wouldn't most likely lift these claims from him because he would still think that he owns the rights somehow to any code that will output that thing.

Re:Well, this should be easy

[Aim Here]

Now I'm not a lawyer but I read Groklaw a bit, and from the comment on the Novell-SCO case, I'm under the impression that copyrights are one of those special types of properties that need a formal written conveyance of some sort before they're transferred. An oral contract won't cut it.

Not that this is where I think this case falls down - the important thing to note here is that the actual code snippets are probably too small and insignificant to be protectable and is probably too different to cause a copyright breach. But that's just a guess.

The code that shagged me

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Connolly: Gentlemen, welcome to my underground lair. Here is the plan. Back in the 80s I developed a sophisticated HTML attribute that we called "colspan." Using this "colspan" we were able to format a table so that one cell would span two columns in a given row, thus creating what we referred to as a "lead story block." We'll allow this "lead story block" to find its way into the Mambo open source project and then hold the community ransom for... [quick zoom in] PROPRIETARY CODE RIGHTS! [pinky in mouth]

#2: [clears throat] Dr. Connolly. Don't you think maybe we should ask for more than proprietary code rights? Microsoft alone makes over 30 billion dollars per year in revenue.

Dr. Connolly: Riiight. Then we will hold the Mambo community ransom for... [quick zoom in] UNENDING CIVIL LAWSUITS. [pinky in mouth]

NewsForge Powers: Not s'fast, Dr. Connolly! Colspan is a common table attribute used by many groovy CMS-based websites. You've got no case, man!

Dr. Connolly: Shit. Oh hell, let's just do what we always do, FUD the hell out of eWeek and CNet and threaten the reputation of free software

Read and follow all the linked articles.

[Ayanami Rei]

The key problem was Erik's off-hand comment he made in his email. What he thought would be taken as "facetious" was perceived as a threat or challenge by Connolly. And now we have this mess.

Perhaps Connolly did not know how relatively insignificant Erik's mutual functional change to both codebases was...

Re:Read and follow all the linked articles.

[Anonymous Coward]

It could really come down to a cultural/language misunderstanding between an American and an European.

But!

[Ayanami Rei]

Newsforge is aware of this.

Asked Connolly for a proof of a "work for hire" contract? No dice.
What it sounds like is that Connolly was asking him to tinker on his CMS. Whatever Erik took away from that experience is not owned by Connolly, especially if he didn't sign an agreement.
That's like having a contractor come help you finish your deck, then preventing him from using similar designs on another job!

Re:But!

[julesh]

IANAL, but I believe if there is no explicit contract, "work for hire" is assumed whenever money changes hands for IP related work.

It would be up to the developer to show a contract (a verbal one would probably be sufficient, as long as Connolly didn't contest it) that stated he retained rights to the work he developed.

Re:But!

[Anonymous Coward]

You've actually got it backwards. Contractors own their own code by default, employees' work is considered work-for-hire. IANAL, though, so you might want to look it up for your own satisfaction.

mod up for funny and for truth

[Ayanami Rei]

This is win.

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[Enahs]

Well, apparently Connolly contracted a developer to modify GPLed Mambo code, and when the contractor gave the code back to the original authors, Connolly went apeshit stupid and started threatening to sue Mambo users if they didn't stop using the "illegal" code.

Since my attempts to visit the Furthermore site greet me only with stories about the fight against Mambo, it's hard to tell if they were just selling a service, or if they sell licenses to Furthermore. If it's the latter, I'd STFU if I were Connolly, since he's the one doing illegal things.

What I find amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that Connolly got this much media attention while:

a) Never looking at the code (which he's admitted)
b) Never getting a lawyer to review his claims and back him up (which he's admitted)
c) Never producing the so called 'contract'

Never underestimate the power of a pissed off PR guy with a grudge...

Put up or shut up

[JonnyO]

Connolly needs to put his money where his mouth is. If he's got a valid gripe, he needs to file suit and let the courts settle it. If not, he needs to cease and desist. His ranting and raving has the tone of a supermarket tabloid, killing any credibility he might otherwise have. A court would most likely view it as a strike against him were the Mambo developers or Miro to file a declaratory judgement suit against him. Not that I'm offering any legal advice, of course. ;-)

It seems very simple to me...

[TooTrueTroubs]

1) Connelly hires Sakic to create a static "leading block" style functionality - which already exists in other open-source, GPL CMS's - for the Furthermore website. 2) Sakic creates a dynamic version of the same functionality - which, as I said, already exists - for Mambo, based on new, different code. 3) Connelly claims he can "just tell" that it's the same code by looking at the site without any kind of code comparison. 4) Connelly threatens end-users without a shred of proof. Now the simple part is, that "leading block" functionality itself exists as "prior art". Anyone can create one and publish it. You just can't use exactly the same code as someone who holds copyright on a version of that functionality. From the perspective of pure technical function, it's nearly impossible for the code to be the same from the static template on Furthermore to the dynamic function in Mambo and in fact would need to be written from scratch to function in that environment. Connelly simply wants the codebase of Mambo for himself, so that he can create a proprietary, probably hosted, version of something like eknowhow.com. Taking the lessons of both Ford and SCO into account at this juncture would probably serve him well.

Re:It seems very simple to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally -- someone who read TFA and actually GETS the simple concepts in it!

This is so stupid, here's a solution.

[davidu]

Wouldn't there be an easy solution?

Rip out the related code find somebody who has never worked on Mambo OS and give them a written (non-code or pseudo-code) description of what feature you want and let them just do it in 20 minutes from scratch.

I've never looked at the Mambo code nor the furthermore stuff but I know PHP like the back of my hand and there are plenty of people like me.

I don't even think this is one of those "but it's the principle" issues...just some miscommunications..

Just my $.02,

davidu

Re:This is so stupid, here's a solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a PHP programmer and I know how easy it is to produce the same code as someone else - even I have done it by accident.

I am also a leading developer of a website CMS (Renegade CMS - http://www.renegade-cms.com) and one of my greatest fears is accidently using the same code as someone else. Of course if this ever happens I would remove the offending code and rewrite it - simple and easy. Why doesn't Mambo do this?

Re:This is so stupid, here's a solution.

[Some Bitch]

Of course if this ever happens I would remove the offending code and rewrite it - simple and easy. Why doesn't Mambo do this?

As far as I am aware, they have. Connolly doesn't care though, he's under the impression the whole idea is his.

Re:This is so stupid, here's a solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Of course if this ever happens I would remove the offending code and rewrite it - simple and easy. Why doesn't Mambo do this?

Because "Connolly's" code is not in Mambo and has never been in Mambo.
The code added to Mambo was not at all the same as the code delivered to Connolly, that's what the developer states.
Besides the alleged breach happened one year ago and the code in question has already changed 100 times (take a look at the CVS for the past year).

The thing is: Connolly doesn't care, it's his code period. :)
In the same time as he publicly admits he never even looked at it or compared.

I Agree.

[KrisHolland]

Jtem seems to not realize that if you made a deritive of a GPLed work it does not have to be distributed unless you distribute the binaries.

I.e. I can make *MY* own version of LINUX, put in breath taking functionality, and as long as I use it only on my computer, or at my organization then I have *NO* obligation to release the source to anyone *UNLESS* I give away the binary file to an outside 3rd party.

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[spuzzzzzzz]

Although I haven't been following the case closely, I did RTFA and it made no mention of point (3). My impression was that Connolly kept his derivative secret, which is perfectly valid under the GPL.

The FA did say that "the code was a derivative of GPL-licensed code, thereby making it a derivative work of the parent code and automatically licensing it under the GNU General Public License." However, this is not correct unless Connolly distributed his code

I agree with the rest of the points, though, and I think the main thrust of the article stands. Is there anyone with evidence that Connolly distributed his modified version?

Connoley snookered himeslf.

[darkonc]

Previous to his, my understanding is that Connolley had announced an agreement with one of the companies that he had been directly threatening. My understanding is that they agreed to pay him for the use of 'his' code. Those people are now in legal possession of that code -- whether it is his code or not.

• If it is properly copyright by Furthermore, he has now effectively distributed it, and the legal recipients have the rights to redistribute it under the GPL.
• If it is not properly copyright furthermore then he never had the right to sue people for using it in the first place.

In either case, the code is now free and open GPL code.

Re:Connoley snookered himeslf.

[Rheingold]

#1 is a damn good point. If he's licensed the code (taken money for its use), he's effectively distributed it and he changes are redistributable.

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[Shambhu]

The grandparent isn't summarizing on its own, it's quoting the creator of the code in question as quoted in the first of the two Newsforge stories. At the end of that article is a rebuttal by Emir Sakic (the coder) to the allegations made by Brian Connolly. The rebuttal contains the above five points.

Obligatory Simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

Homer: "Pfft...You can use facts to prove anything that's even REMOTELY true!"

Actually, he might have a case.

[mwvdlee]

Doesn't the GPL state (in somewhat more precise legal terms) that only changes which are used outside the company need be opened to the public?
If this is so then that developer, if stated as such in the alleged contract, had no right to "copy" the code.

There's still the facts that the code is rather trivial and has prior art. The fact that it's the same developer that did this may just fool the judge into thinking there was indeed an infringement.

I'm usually not a Tinfoil candiate...

[Qbertino]

..but for some reason I can't shake the notion that this is all but a publicity stunt from the Mambo people. Consider this:
1) Mambo isn't the end-all OSS CMS. It's just another drop in the Bucket of a bazillion other Open Source Content management Systems based on PHP and MySQL. And not the best one I might add.
2) The Mambo Site looks cool. These people aren't your usual OSS developers, they are professional designers with a company. The Sites professionality is the single largest reason Mambo has gained that much attention amongst Webbers (in comparsion to other free (beer+speech) CMSes). From the begining it clearly showed: The Mambo Maintainers are top of the line when it comes to advertising and generating interest for their OSS project.
3) The claims are hilariously silly and the code of this incident is so simple it hurts. It takes anyone with more than two braincells less than five minutes to figure out a work around if somebody starts getting pissy with the dev-community. No need what-so-ever to offer a weak spot to some idiot causing trouble.

Say what you want, but to me it all figures.
It could be that the claims of this guy actually came in. Once and with a batch of E-Mails - maybe. But I see nothing indicating that he was dragging this to court. No, I actually just see the Mambo people making the best of this little ego-stroking: A publicity stunt.

Re:I'm usually not a Tinfoil candiate...

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Mambo is developed 100% by volunteer developers. The company referred to "miro" are the copyright holders and sponsors but they have no day to day involvement and do not contribute to code.

3. You cant write a work around if the accuser is claiming ownership of the idea, not just the code.

This is ot a publicity stunt from Mambo. Just ask the people who have recieved abusive and threatening emails and phone calls from Connolly. And in once case a visit from the FBI

Re:I'm usually not a Tinfoil candiate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one do you consider the best?

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, why the hell not plagiarize in a post? The story plagiarizes from the linked article. Why aren't the editors doing their jobs? Oh, wait, it's Timothy.

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[Shambhu]

What's your point? The parent to my post seemed say think that the grandparent had made up the summarization and that #3 was disputable. In fact, all the gp was doing was quoting the article directly.

The GPL has no power to automatically GPL anything

[Phong]

Actually, I believe such a derived work is automatically GPL'd.

A lot of people seem to believe this, but it isn't so. The problem stems from the idea that the GPL has some kind of contractual power to cause something to happen to derived code and it does not. It's just a license, and a license grants extra rights to someone that follows its stipulatons. It tells you how you can gain the ability to redistribute some code without violating its copyright (by following the GPL and choosing to license derivative changes under the GPL as well), but it has no power to force that to happen.

So, what happens when someone takes a GPLed work, modifies it, and distributes the changes with a license that says "This work is under the GPL except for the changes made by Joe Bloe, which are proprietory and not for redistribution except by Joe Bloe"? What happens is that the copyright holders of the GPLed code have had their copyrights violated. No code is ever automatically GPLed because the GPL doesn't have the power to coerce anything -- it's just a license that conditionally grants rights.

To read about this in greater detail, see PJ's excellent article on Groklaw entitled The GPL is a license, not a contract.

Taunting is not cause for a lawsuit.

[darkonc]

I just read Connoly's rebuttal It sooo reads like SCO Rhetoric. As an example:

7. "Code was not stolen verbatim, and it clearly was not an act of malice on anyone's part."
-- Not quite sure what Jem is getting at here. It seems that his argument is that if one only slightly misappropriates... and with a good attitude... well, that's okay.

Need we read much further?? Connoley is essentially saying: "I'm making a copyright complaints and the law is irrelevant!"

Sourceforge says that Sakic effectively taunted Connoley and Connoley's lawsuit is based on that taunting. AFAICT (IANAL) Taunting is not cause for a lawsuit -- certainly, not against innocent third parties. To the extent to which Connoley depended on Sakic's taunts, he may have a suit against Sakic, but not against anybody else. In any event, basing a lawsuit on feelings rather than facts isn't going to get anybody anywhere.

One last point: Connoley went to SCO for advice on this. In my world, going to SCO for advice on (so called) copyright violation cases is like asking Captain Ahab (of Moby Dick fame) how best to capture a whale.

Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5?

[Guspaz]

So? Same thing in SCO's case; their claims have been proven baseless, but that doesn't (and still hasn't) stopped them from sueing the pants off a number of other companies, causing millions of dollars in legal fees for said companies, not to mention the FUD they're spreading.

In fact, the guy could go the patent-route; start sueing each and every Mambo user, most of who will not be able to afford the legal fees and will simply settle.

So, if you ask me, there's still penty to be afraid about; they're far from free and clear.

Impossibility

[chaoticset]

I'm sure it's totally out of the realm of speculation that Connolly was offered a medium-sized pile of money by SCO from the enormous pile they got from Microsoft.

I mean, they're just cooperating! It's not like this is a structured attempt on the part of a small cadre of MS-purchased OSS-involved organizations. That would be impossible. That would be conspiracy! It would require someone to be both the richest man in the world and have deep-running ties throughout the media. I mean, Bill Gates certainly doesn't fit that description.

Also, pigs are flying out my ass.