Slashdot Mirror
SWSoft Out of Compliance With the GPL
MBCook writes "According to the Official Wine Wiki, SWSoft's Parallels 3.0 contains LGPL code. It seems that the new 3D acceleration features of Parallels 3.0 are based on Wine code (SWSoft isn't hiding this), but despite repeated requests they have not yet released their changes for the Wine developers. It has now been 22 days since SWSoft was first contacted on this issue; at the time they promised the code within 1-2 days. They have been contacted numerous time and currently say that they are waiting on 'legal department approval.'" Update: 07/03 00:06 GMT by KD : Reader something_wicked_thi notes that Parallels released the source code the next day.
to 3.0 This is another reason I'll wait.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Stop wineing already! ::Ducks::
Why not just lawyer them into paying $3000 x however many people might use it? Payable to the FSF. Isn't that how the industry works?
Stop wineing already! ::Ducks::
If you don't want to respect other people's copyright, why should anyone respect your copyright?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Mod Parent down
The poster is a troll
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
This is why i hate software firms, stealing of gpl'd code is rife in the industry, yet software firms (i'm looking at you microsoft) are constantly pointing the finger at OSS as if THEY are the ones guilty of theift.
the reality of the situation is that OSS is far more concious of copyright and patent issues then anyone else, and do far more then anyone to audit code for violations yet somehow have been slapped with this label of code stealers.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Expect it soon, after all the slashdotters send them a nice e-mail.
Their legal department has perhaps never heard of the GPL and is flabbergasted that their developers embarked upon something where they have to release their code - the precious, confidential and proprietary sweat of their brows - to the world.
The whole concept is not necessarily intuitive, especially if their lawyers are specialists in "Intellectual Property" law, then they're really crapping a brick.
Your both right and wrong. You didnt pay any licensing fees or library fees for whatever part of linux you modified, you built off of what countless people have invested a large part of their lives into. The big thing these people wanted in return is for their baby (linux) to stay open and for people who use it to keep it that way , and if your going to make money off of their work, that your contributions go back into linux as well. Its pretty fair from my understanding, although your right in that its definitly not for everyone. Most people looking to invest alot of time and money into developing software would usually take the time to read the license of whatever source they are developing on top of. I can completed understand how this was frustrating to you and probably wound up costing unneeded time and money, but you should have been more professional. You dont resell someone elses product without making sure its ok first, thats kind of basic imo. This liscensing(spelling) scheme works very well for some people, and causes obsticles for others, but thats the intent.
http://interserver.net/
Sorry, you seem to be mistaken. You're only required to publish changes if you /distribute/ code, which is not what is happening at all. And, you don't need to GPL things compiled by gcc, you need to GPL things compiled with glibc, ie, when you actually include GPL'd code in yours. I think. For all I know, glibc could be LGPL'd [now that I think about it, it probably is]. The reason being, you don't actually distribute any part of gcc with your software.
That would be like having being told what you can and can't do with things written in Microsoft Notepad.
We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
Gnu Protective License?
People please stop falling for this...
No one better be putting something into my wine without clear, straight forward, and confirmable information about what they did to the wine!
First off, their are statutory damages, but generally only for registered copyrights. Also, it's not clear what "damages" the copyright owner, we don't know who, has suffered. Your relief is based upon damages, and maybe a punitive component, not I don't like you.
The FSF requires copyright assigned because then there is a clear owner and clear damages, because the FSF with the GNU manifesto and other things has its defined benefit from GPL'd code. Makes it more likely you can gain relief... if they sue and ask for damages plus injunctive relief, there is a clear plaintiff, not "a bunch of hackers," that has standing.
22 days is no a long time. Generally, if you are dealing in legal action, 30 days is standard. Sure, obnoxious lawyers demand things with 10 days to correct, but generally, 30 is normal.
It appears to be a major screw-up, they released code based upon LGPL'd code. Legal needs to figure out what they did, what they are at risk for, and what they should do. They need to make certain that they can legally release code, and if that is sufficient.
The copyright holders should hold their feet to the fire, but public shaming and getting half stories out seems a bit premature at this stage of the game. What damages can the Wine project have had from not having access to derivative versions of their software from this company in 22 days? Lots of things can crop of and cause things to take a few weeks. Everyone chill, and don't prejudge until we see a resolution.
Everyone is "free to sue," but each wine copyright holder may or not have standing, and may or may not have sufficient damages to due and/or be granted injunctive relief. If you ask the court to stop them from distributing your software because they are doing so without a license, it's harder to claim that if various copyright holders have 10-15 lines of code.
There is no "class" here for a class action lawsuit.
urban legend. fuck off asshole
t hreadID=2246&messageID=11919&start=-1
http://news.com.com/5208-1030_3-0.html?forumID=1&
22 days isn't very long, and it sounds like they're not entirely sure where they stand. Let them get proper legal advice, and then plan out what they'll release. The alternative is that they'll clamp down, pull the feature, and release nothing.
Unless they modified the libraries of wine itself and not linked to then it should be ok if its copyleft.
Am I miss-informed? If so what is the difference between the lgpl and the gpl?
http://saveie6.com/
Not that I really think it will make much of a difference on its own, but here's the email that I sent to info@parallels.com when I first read about this earlier today:
Hopefully, if enough people complain to Parallels – and once they start to realize that they will lose customers over behavior like this – they will decide to do the right thing.
I guess you need to hire better developers, and then actually provide some oversight.
Lack of hiring/technical/managerial skills on your part are your problem, not anyone else's. Where's the fairness in you trying to unload that on others?
Oh, and a suggestion: take some time off from that clearly challenging job of yours for a remedial course in basic English.
Write to the CEO (Sergey Beloussov) directly: sb@swsoft.com He is pretty responsive actually.
As a former employee, I should say that part of the problem is developers, that choose libraries for the project without looking into the license. I didn't work on Parallels project, so I don't know how exactly it is there, but in our project I several time had to tell people that they can't use some library, because it is GPL and they were like "Hmm, never thought of looking at it from this perspective". Most of them just used to take and use whatever is available
May Peace Prevail On Earth
The headline is *wrong*.
8 ), the statement is somewhat confusing, since it can be intepreted that they're using only Wine DLLs or that they actually changed some of Wine code to suit them. Are we going after Parallels simply because of a forum post and a timeline on a wiki?
Wine uses LGPL 2.1, not the latest GPL or even the latest version of the LGPL.
WineHQ states that "The licensing terms are the GNU Lesser General Public License" on their main page, which links to the Licensing page where they have the text for the LGPL v2.1 (http://www.winehq.org/site/license).
I read their copy of the LGPL 2.1, and other than requesting that copies of the library and its source be distributed with the project that uses it, I don't see where it says that the source for the entire project making use of the library has to be released as well, unless it can be demonstrated that significant changes have been made to the library to use it in the project or that the project relies completely on it to make it unusable if removed.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has actually seen any of the Parallels sourcecode, so no one can actually say how much or even if Parallels has modified Wine to use it in their software.
While they admit they use Wine DLLs in a forum post (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=1264
Does Parallels really have to release their source code if no one can conclusively know if or how they have modified Wine source?
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
>So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.
/pub/linux/system/Filesystems/
P LToolsForNF
You can imagine my surprise when I realized your "lawyer" doesn't understand the GNU General Public License (GPL). Unless this "top online investment firm" was interested in redistributing the software to others, they are under no obligation to publish anything. As a work-for-hire code monkey, you had no obligation (or even legal right, for that matter) to publish anything.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system
You don't say? There is a program called defrag that defragments ext2 filesystems. It is available at better sunsite mirrors, and notably at Sunsite -
http://cbbrowne.com/info/defrag.html
>Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.
My condolences. All that Linux software that was available at no cost to you, and you actually had to put your own work into it? And then (gasp! horror!) you were expected to share and share alike? How did you manage? If it were me, I just would have killed myself from the shame of being so deceived and violated.
However, did you consider that all the touch ups by your competitors would also be available at no cost to you? Wow! That's almost as good as getting a whole kernel and operating system for free! Imagine that!
>Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
100% true, except the part that starts with "Furthermore" and ends with "unacceptable."
See the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseG
>Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution.
You were paid to create something for somebody else, the work belongs to them. Normally this would entail that you would have to 'give away' your hard work, as it didn't belong to you.
>Although it was tough to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
Portability; teach your children that it's not a dirty word.
>I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.
I think the biggest thing keeping Microsoft from being competitive with Linux is the GPL. It's simple requirements virtually guarantee that businesses will be required to provide value through innovation and service rather than creating proprietary lock-in and forced upgrades. After your experience with Linux, I think it's best that you avoid it and creating offspring. Bit players like Ubuntu (the African word meaning 'Unable to configure Debian.') will just have to settle for things like shipping on Dell computers. Sure is rough, but we'll manage; somehow.
After everything, you are certainly free to ignore Linux. Microsoft will be happy to sell you an operating system, office software, and a software development kit.
It is LGPL'd not GPL'd code. The license expressly states that the reason for the LGPL is to allow proprietary software to use the library in some ways. Maybe they are sitting down with their lawyers to ensure compliance absent releasing the source. Maybe they have several contributors and need to sort out the rights so they don't get sued. Heck, maybe they are seeking clairity on this point from the license:
Point is, lawyers are slow, and companies often use them to prevent negative, unforseen consequences. Give them more time before crucifying/boycotting/etc. instinctively.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
This makes me feel a lot better for dropping them and getting VMware Fusion. Besides VMware has been around a long time and the virtual machines can be run on different platforms cause you can get VMware for Windows and Linux. BTW, if you check the vmware Fusion forum, you can get a license for the release version (non-beta) for half price right now (about $40).
:)
I'm also glad someone noticed Parallels is abusing Wine and I hope the company acts ethically and to the satisfaction of the Wine project. I don't know how hard it is to spot companies who are abusing free software projects but I wouldn't be surprised if it was wide-spread. Those money grubbing scumbags. Take em to the cleaners. Maybe get a centralized body and start sending companies settlement letters to avoid litigation... Okay kidding
Think for a moment and stop going off like an idiot. Someone contacted a company and said, "you are using my copyrighted material without complying with the terms of the license, the license is as follows, fix it."
Who do you think should make the decision as to what is legally required? Perhaps the legal department? Perhaps they have outside counsel like many small companies, and their lawyers needs to read the LGPL and figure out what it applies do.
You expect them to make a decision on a legal matter without finding out from legal what to do.
Legal isn't going to tell them that it's okay to violate someone's copyright, but legal is going to tell them what they need to do to comply with a legal request.
Companies that sold CDs and simply put links on their website to their modified code weren't complying with the GPL. Do you think that FSF's complaints about GPL violations were handled by the webmaster making his own legal call, or legal figured out what to do to comply?
You could just take it down and stop distributing it. If it wasn't an authorized release you're okay. Stop the infringement and remove all the GPLed code and have a re-release.
Okay, there is a list of authors. So what. Something not being okay doesn't mean it is legally challengeable.
Further, courts can offer monetary relief and injunctive relief, that' about it. Damages need to be translated into dollars.
They didn't follow the license, therefore, they are infringing upon WINE or those 800+ people's copyright, so what?
They are legally in the wrong, so what?
What are the damages? Do you want to foot the bill to just get injunctive relief?
One of the reasons to assign to FSF is they WILL foot the bill to get injunctive relief, which is a threat to businesses that makes the FSF credible. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that: 299 Shi Quan He (picked a line at random) is not going to drop a $20k retainer off at an attorney to file for an injunction to stop Parallels 3.0 from shipping...
SWSoft screwed up, seems to acknowledge that they need to fix it, and some jackass is all over Slashdot because 3 weeks later and legal is figuring out what to do.
Can anyone confirm that there's evidence they modified this library? The Wine Wiki page that's linked doesn't actually say anywhere that they were or why they believe they were. If there are no modifications, they don't have to release the code, that's the point of the LGPL. So if anybody has a link to evidence that they modified them then please post up.
so if i used your code in my project and didn't give you anything for it you'd think that was ok?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
actually if you just compile source with gcc and didn't include any gpl'd modules you'd be ok.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"Exactly. There seems to be some bizarre prejudice in this industry that if you aren't making any money off of it, then you don't have a right to defend your copyrights and software licenses."
And yet people borrow copyrighted material from websites all the time even if it's free but the author has explicitly requested people not to.
"I'm not saying that we should make an example out of Parallels in particular, but an example might just be what's needed to help reverse this attitude."
Examples? Attitude? What kind of examples are pirates setting? What kind of attitude is the public showing when it does it enmass? Maybe the public needs to remove some motes before it starts complaining about the planks.
Oh yes! It was the first post! My life is fulfilled. My very first troll moderation too.
[ Technical note: You don't normally defrag ext2 or ext3: neither need it. ]
I've seen very similar complaints from folks who never understood or had the GPL carefully explained to them. Yes, if you build on top of someone else's code base (such as a Linux kernel, which is under GPL) and send that modified tool to your customers, then you have to send along your modifications to your customers. This is how Linux the kernel, and the GNU softwaer on which so much of Linux the operating system, became so powerful and effective.
If you're going to compete in that world, and reap the benefits of the software, you'll have to have some real addition to sell on top of it. This may be continuing technical innovation in your product line: this may be unique support for its use: it may be customization services for your customers. But yeah, you can't change 2 lines of code to break compatibility with anyone else's products and pretend it's the same product, then keep it secret. (That's basically what Microsoft did with Kerberos in Active Directory: it's been worked around in MIT's source code.) Nor can you reap 1000 man-weeks of development time, add 2 weeks for a cute new feature, and deny the others who provided that 1000 man-weeks the opportunity to test or include that feature.
If your source code is so precious that only you can be allowed to see or use it, then you are massively vulnerable to software theft. And frankly, that kind of secrecy makes your code untrustworthy: what precisely are you scared of people seeing? That you've hacked your libraries to work around a hardware bug that should never have been there? Or that your security model is a sad, sad joke? Or that your much vaunted "new feature" is something that has been in place for 4 years, but was never published? (Yes, I've seen all of these happen.)
As original developers, they have no right to a copy of the source. The GPL doesn't give them this right.
The only people who do have the right to the code are the people who bought Parallels. Did the Wine team buy themselves a copy?
You're smart enough to write fancy virtualization software, but not smart enough to google about a very popular software license before you incorporate it into your commercial product?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This is not even just a principle thing; aside from possible bug fixes they've done, they have possibly done useful work in porting Wine's DirectX implementation to Windows. (Possibly in the sense that one can't be sure if they've done it in a way that would please the Wine folks enough to integrate.)
This is currently not that big a deal, but as Wine gains DX10 functionality, it'd be quite funky to enable earlier Windows versions to run DX10 games, and therefore reduce the pressure for some people to upgrade to Vista.
I spotted this when I was trying to get one of the Touhou shooting games to work and couldn't update the DLLs.
I even mentioned it in the Wine IRC channel.
I *KNEW* something was up!
I'm uninstalling it and demanding a refund, I refuse to support thieves.
WRONG!!!!!WRONG!!!!!WRONG!!!!!WRONG!!!!!WRONG!!!!! WRONG!!!!!WRONG!!!!!WRONG!!!!!
This is playing Microsoft's FUD game - it's EXACTLY what MS wants us to do.
DON'T threaten OS users of any kind, legal or illegal with a court case!
Someone should offet to contact them, explain the aims and terms of the licence, in a non-threatening manner, and see how they can help them to do what they want to do and become compliant. For God's sake, don't go threatening to have a legal fight - the idea of FOSS will die if we are seen as litigous. We want converts, not enemies!
Ideally, try not to talk to lawyers. Don't send threatening letters. Talk to the board about business matters - explain the FOSS idea - show how you have to have legal protection against monopolists like MS, but don't use a legal threat against people who have not shown bad faith.
If you link against a GPL library, you will be asked to either give out the source OR to remove the GPL code that you currently use. If you remove it, then all will be forgiven. If you do not AND do not release the source, THEN you will be in non-compliance. I would argue that stallman and FSF has been historically VERY fair.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...after the recent debacle where SWSoft added heavy advertising for their own products into the Plesk web hosting panel (and basically gave the finger to customers complaining) this latest escapade doesn't really surprise me I'm afraid.
Full details here: http://forum.swsoft.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid =38249
The FSF don't ask for damages, they ask for compliance. In the longterm Wine and ReactOS would benefit, even swsoft may benefit from submitting their modifications upstream.
If my company we're suffering harassment as a result of an licensing fuck-up like this, I may be tempted to push for expunging all LGPL code and recreating the functionality from scratch. We should be happy that the swsoft developers chose to use LGPL code, help them comply with the license and encourage them to participate in the community.
To those who don't get it, it's the RIAA troll response moddified for the GPL troll response. It's supposed to be funny. That said, I understand if no one thinks it is...
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Absolututely, unless you distributed the binaries and refused to distribute the source (in which case I'd be concerned).
There are 10 kinds of people; those who know ternary, those who don't, and those now hunting for a dictionary.
22 days. Seriously. This story is premature for one, probably because soon enough there won't be a story.
SWSoft has been working with GPL and LGPL code for years now. I highly doubt that they're actually balking at releasing sources to a modified library when things they've released in the past have more value to them.
Being a company of their size and scope, they have a legal department and they're probably working through the internal issue that this kind of company is going to encounter: You don't normally give away your code, but in this case they have to. It's a symptom of disorganization, not malice. So suck it up and don't forget to be thankful for all the work they've done when the code is released.
I use OSS as much as anyone else here, but this sense of entitlement that's being promoted is sick. Be thankful for what you have.
In reality, most owners of GPL'd code would merely demand that you immediately withdraw the offending project and remove the link to their code. Some might even consider selling you the right to use their code under a different license. Even if they demanded that you release the full source code to your application, however, you wouldn't have to, because the GPL does not require that; it merely says that if you don't, you are in violation of copyright. And the penalty for copyright violation under American law is monetary damages, not "releasing source code".
There are many instances when ext2/3 are fragmented, and numerous instances when such fragmented file systems would benefit from defragmentation. Ext2/3 are fragmentation resistant (more so than NTFS, and hugely more so than FAT) but it is not possible to create a file system which is immune to fragmentation.
Example: Fill a 1 GB disk to, say, 90% capacity with files large enough to require a single disk block. Now delete half of those files at random. Now write a handful of 50MB file to this disk. I can guarantee you that these files will be fragmented on disk. Any system which has ever used more than 70%-80% of available disk space probably has several fragmented files.
The fact that no good tools exist to identify and correct fragmentation on ext2/3 does not mean it does not occur, and claiming "fragmentation is a good thing" is like MySQL 3 claiming "foreign keys and transactions are unnecessary". The myth is based on the assumption that most important files are generally small enough to fit into one disk block. That hasn't been true on Linux for several years, and as multimedia support increases the situation will only get worse.
Seriously, pick a system you've had running for a few years that had decent file I/O and run a fsck (the only diagnostic tool I know of for these file systems). Historically you're never supposed to go ever 5%. If you're at 20%, you're probably experiencing I/O bottlenecking regularly. Even worse than that, the only way to defrag ext2/3 is to rebuild the file system manually by copying files off, running mkfs, and then reloading your files. Offline defrag is the only option.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
However, it is also quite explicit in the GPL that all those registered users then have the right to give the GPL-ed parts of the source code to anyone else. So why go to the hassle of constraining the release like that? If even one of your customers (Y) decides to carefully cut out the GPL-ed bits and put those on her l33t website, you may as well keep that "goodwill value" for yourself and publish it yourself, officially. IMHO that would also maximise the (potential) benefit that somebody notices your modifications and decides to incorporate them back into your own upstream source (the W project), keeping them (hopefully) maintained.
Legally speaking, suppose now that you were the upstream GPL contributor W instead; who would you rather accept patches from: a company X that uses your software and puts their modifications of your GPL code on their official website, or somebody random (Y) who claims to have legally obtained the version of your GPL code that was modified by X, but X really doesn't mind, trust her? Even if both cases have legally the same end-result (the X-modified GPL code rejoining its mother project), the first case is very clear-cut but the second could maybe theoretically lead to some explaining to do in court, which nobody (sane) wants.
Or am I misunderstanding something here?
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Has any of the /. staff thought writing an addition/plugin/module/whatever to slash that identifies these troll posts and stop them from being posted ? Most of these have been around for ages, and posted many times (although i couldn't find that many from /., mainly because [AFAIK] google will not index threads that are hidden).
Shouldn't be that hard, define some way of calculating the distance between texts, allow users to flag posts as repeat troll, when enough similar flagged posts are found add it to the list, and finally check new posts against the list at post time.
But OTOH, this is probably a little overkill for something that is already dealt with rather well by the existing modding system.
Lima India November Uniform X-ray
(replying to myself here) I'm sorry, what I said would have been nonsense with regard to GPL code, but I think it's still valid with regard to LGPL code, which is the case here.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
I bought a copy of Parallels at some point and they just lost my mailing address from their system. Repeated requests to their customer support E-mail have remained unanswered (except for the automated answer).
I wouldn't give that company another dime.
Now that VMware is out, it's a more convenient solution anyway, since it's cross-platform.
There is already ill feeling towards SWSoft from some of the community over issues of license adherence and I'm surprised it's not already been mentioned in this discussion.
SWSoft are also the developers of Plesk which is (expensive commercial) server management software, similar in functionality to cPanel and the like.
For a number of years now some Plesk users have been complaining that source code is not made readily available for some of the patched packages that are provided by SWSoft with their Plesk software -- specifically here I am referring to Qmail, but this applies to other modified software bundled with Plesk.
It's a total bummer - make's it impossible to tweak the mail server when you can't simply rebuild it, especially with Qmail - the base code for which doesn't have any of the more modern useful features that other mail servers have until you apply a myriad of patches to it.
- Which patches have they applied and how?
- What other tweaks have they made?
- Where can I get the source code for the non-SWSoft bundled components of Plesk?
I really think SWSoft have pushed their luck for too long already, it's about time they either became compliant and released the ALL of the code they were meant to - or they should be punished legally.
Posting anonymously because we use Plesk a lot (not my choice).
I would be interested to hear comments from anyone else on the matter of source code for the modified open source components utilised within Plesk...
If they injected code from Microsoft to work with DirectX 10 (uh, what a stupid version name), which they signed under an NDA and which is proprietary, they may have unwittingly parked themselves in a very hot spot.
Wine Devs may maybe grant them a special commercial license in an emergency, but who knows what may happen in these grey areas.
Battle of the sourcecodes. Episode II will be very entertaining. Making me wish to just stop caring about programming and all this license non-sense, and just go for hiking in the woods and meditating.
Before we all get too excited...
The TFA links to a page on the official Parallels website that acknowledges the use of open source code from various sources, including the use of the LGPL, and offers to provide the source on request, as required.
Allegedly, when people have actually EMAILed this address, the response has been less than satisfactory.
Its quite right that the WINE people are keeping an eye on this situation, but I suggest that people browse the rest of the Parallels support fora and form an impression of the company's general track-record vis. timely and helpful responses to EMAIL requests before trying to answer the "conspiracy" vs. "cock-up" question.
Parallels for Mac is a jolly impressive product - they got a perfectly usable package out of the door, at a very low price within, what? six months of the launch of Intel Macs, and have since been regularly upping the ante in terms of OSX/Windows integration. However, they also have issues - e.g. too many people were enticed by the website to try the beta version of 2.5 and the current blurb for 3.0 widely oversells its ability to Run today's most popular PC games on a Mac.
The latter is a pity - what they've achieved is jolly impressive (e.g. I've been quite happily running "Freelancer" - everything apart from the opening splash & movie works, UT2004 was tolerable, with glitches) but its much more "enjoy a few of your 3-4 year old PC games that you didn't think you'd be able to play again".
As for the EMAIL & support: they'd been selling virtualization software to a crowd of tech-savvy developers and sysadmins, then they suddenly started dealing with regular Mac users who wanted to sync their mobile phones or run accounting software and were now trying to "virtualize" the copy of windows previously installed under "bootcamp". Anybody here want to volunteer for that particular helldesk?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
From tfa:
"Parallels Desktop for Mac(www.parallels.com) contains Wine's Direct3D code according to http://www.parallels.com/en/licensing/. So far(June 30th, 2007) attempts to ask them for the modified source code failed. This page is meant for keeping track of this, without starting legal action or a publicity campaign yet."
Great way for some lamo to start a publicity campaign when the wine guys didn't even want that yet.....
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Whoa, whoa. I didn't say it's a good thing to be fragmented. But to a large extent, it's pointless to defragment with a reasonably well written file system such as ext2 and ext3. There's quite a bit of low level work that went into optimizing their disk access, and the file structure is not prone to the sort of performance degradation common to FAT32 or to a lesser extent NTFS when numerous caching operations are done. Moreover, the typical caching of frequently accessed files in available RAM massively reduces the performance hit of fragmentation. The fragmentation you're worrying about is more important for, for example, high bandwidth video streaming. But unless you've engaged in interesting games to prevent any other processes from accessing that disk at all, the performance hit is negligible if even perceptible to ordinary use.
OMG. The Microsoft FUD and Astroturf division found Slashdot...
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
mod parent up - this is not the first time swsoft have not fully complied with licences
swsoft are not small, and they do understand about licences - they just have a commercial dis-interest in such things.
Well... First, as someone pointed out, you don't need to defrag ext2 (nor ext3/4) file systems unless they get unreasonably full. Even then, it should be a minor problem to do so, provided you have enough free disk space and the file in question is not in active use.
Second, as it was also well pointed out by someone else, you don't need to GPL code compiled with GCC. Even if you did, there are a couple other compilers available. You usually have to pay for them, but I see you and your company don't want to pay for stuff. That's too bad.
And third: If you wanted a kernel you could turn proprietary, you should start with one of the fine *BSDs. Microsoft did it with its TCP/IP stack back in the WinNT days and it worked out fine for them.
And that's why I prefer GPL to BSD licenses: GPL prevents people from stealing the code, building on the work of others without giving anything (but FUD) back, and that's what you want.
Besides that, you are a Anonymous Coward. I don't expect you to come forward and to
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
"Even worse than that, the only way to defrag ext2/3 is to rebuild the file system manually by copying files off, running mkfs, and then reloading your files. Offline defrag is the only option."
It's not that bad. You don't need to defrag the whole FS or take all its contents off-line. You can do that a folder at a time. I certainly did it a couple times (mainly for disk-space purposes, but the reduced fragmentation was a plus). It goes like that: You pick an unfragmented FS and move the folder to it from the old FS and then symlink the new folder to the old one. It's simple as that. You can even copy-remove-and-symlink if the file is not being used.
I am not aware of heavy bottlenecks also. Even in the most fragmented FSs I saw, the time the processor spent in iowait was mostly due to swap activity.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
The GNU C Library actually is distributed under LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node /Copying.html), So your closed-source proprietary code is allowed to link with it without any problem and you don't have to redistribute the Glibc's code as long as it's unmodified. According to http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=12648& highlight=wine , a guy named Andrew, who is a Parallels' forum administrator, openly admitted they're using modified LGPL code, as quoted: "In current implementation Parallels uses modified Wine code under LGPL license.". What they're missing is the fact that according to the LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html), in it's Section 2, if they distribute modified binaries based on the LGPL code they need to redistribute the source code of the modified LGPL library under LGPL or GPL. Quoting:
"2. Conveying Modified Versions.
If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a facility refers to a function or data to be supplied by an Application that uses the facility (other than as an argument passed when the facility is invoked), then you may convey a copy of the modified version:
a) under this License, provided that you make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the event an Application does not supply the function or data, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful, or
b) under the GNU GPL, with none of the additional permissions of this License applicable to that copy."
Umm, as original developers they own the copyright on the code. Period. Any distribution of the derived library (not the entire Parallels suite!) can only occur under the terms of the LGPL. Thus while the developers do not have a purchased license to install parallels, they are in a position to demand that Parallels release the modified library source doe to their customers. Otherwise Parallels is in breach of copyright and has no right to distribute the derived library in any form, customers or not.
Oh my God.
Dude. Try to develop some faintly realistic view of the way things work in the real world. They've agreed that they've got code to put back, and they've promised to put it back, but they also have investors to protect and very probably other licenses to consider. Some attorney, billing hundreds of dollars an hour, has to confirm that they're only putting back the right stuff. Add to that, it's summer, and people take vacations. I'd be frankly astonished if they could manage that in 22 days.
The article in Wine Wiki explicitly says, "this page is meant for keeping track of this, without starting legal action or a publicity campaign yet.". (This seems to be dated June 30, the latest change).
Do people think the Wine folks are incompetent? What is the point of going against their explicit request?
Sorry to feed the troll, but you obviously don't know the first thing about Linux, and both you and your company's lawyers don't know the first thing about the GPL.
ext2 and 3 are both designed to not need to be defragged, unlike FAT or NTFS, which require it on a regular basis to keep from being nigh useless.
Any company that doesn't examine the licensing of the software it will use before putting it into production deserves whatever legal consequences it earns. The first thing I do before starting a project based on other open source (or more rarely proprietary) software is check the listening t make sure I can use it for what I need.
WRONG. The GPL only requires source code disclosure if you distribute the modified code. GPL code isn't free in the do whatever you want, anarchy style freedom that some might want. GPL is free in a community conscious, mutual support style. I personally, as a developer, am of a mixed opinion about this setup. On one side, there is the desire to try making money by hiding "secrets". The other side is that the people who wrote GPL code put a lot of (usually personal) time into developing this code and taking their code without proper credit and listening to their wish on how to use the code.
If you think that using someone's code without proper credit is fair, stop using GPL and label yourself an IP thief. You will also need to write your own kernel (or go back to paying $150+ per seat to use Windows). There are different costs for using different things. Community support is the cost of GPL software, cold hard cash (along with the potential for other, undisclosed costs) is the cost for proprietary software. Its your choice, but when you chose don't complain that you didn't look at what you picked.
Clones are people two.
You're completely right, but see the [astroturfing] parent of my post for context. They were [supposedly] using kernel and all, but weren't distributing anything, so it was a moot point, but they felt it had to be included in their troll, hence the clarification.
:(
To be honest, posts like theirs scare the crap out of me. If, for example, Microsoft can convince big business to pay patent royalties without Microsoft informing the people who wrote the software in question, than posts like the one I'd replied to may convince small business owners and such to stay away from anything GPL'd.
We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
they do similar with plesk - there is another post here with some details
7 05545
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243845&cid=19
This is just a plain example on expected negetive effect of GNU Protectipon License on Open Source movement and community. How predictable!
> Gnu Protective License
:oD
Yeah dude -- Save the Gnus!!!
I thought that output could only be required to be under the GPL if the compiler copied a non-trivial portion of its GPL code into the output. In this case, though, it is the standard library that gets included, not part of the compiler. With a tool like bison, where parser code is copied into the output, an exception is necessary.
t
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutpu
You know, people use this all the time, and it's simply not true. Wrong is wrong. It's not like you have a quota of immorality points you can spend how you like, and if you don't go over that limit, all is forgiven.
If you steal my french fry, you're still a bastard, and if I was hungry, I'll complain. I won't throw a screaming fit, but I'll say "Hey, don't take my fries, man." Except in this case, it's actually illegal, and it does hurt.
The whole fucking point of an analogy is to draw a parallel. The only perfect analogy isn't an analogy, it's a definition.
I don't know how you can possibly understand enough about the statement to make a moral judgment -- and think they might not have screwed up.
But they are being abused, and there is damage.
OK, better analogy: Let's say my bank decides to take money out of my account for some reason. I log into my electronic bank one day, and half my savings are gone. I ask them to put it back, and they say they have to check with their lawyers, because they thought they were allowed to steal from me.
You know, no one's hurt. I'm not physically in pain. Most people would still be able to shop for food, pay the bills, and so on -- it probably wouldn't be a big deal to wait another few weeks. But would you call this an acceptable situation?
In the real world, that's exactly when I'd move to another bank. Not after they've had a few more weeks to dick around and delay while they have my money and I don't, but right fucking then. The moment I login and see that, I call the bank. If it's not corrected immediately, e-check the entire account to PayPal while I continue to ask the bank for the rest of it, the next day I can take a walk around town looking for a good brick&mortar bank.
I'd think that if they didn't, either you're right, which means the summary has to be completely wrong, or there is something very wrong with the language of the LGPL, which is a big deal.
I found it to be more clear than just about any other license I've read, and an order of magnitude clearer than any EULA.
Here, read this:
There is no doubt that they intended to distribute Wine under the LGPL -- along with libmspack and the Plex86 VGABIOS. I do not have a copy of Parallels itself, but judging from the Wine wiki, source code did not ship with Parallels -- that, or the Wine wiki is lying. And even if the LGPL allowed such measures, I do not even see a link from the Parallels website to the Wine website, and the only mention of it anywhere but their forums seems to be on this page [parallels.com], which contains no URLs at all. It is reasonable to assume that even if they have altered nothing (which seems unlikely or impossible), that page is not really sufficient for a consumer to go download the source code -- it doesn't ev
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"Let them get proper legal advice"
That is something they should have got _before_ they tampered with LGPL code!
It takes time and effort on part of OSS to start a project and keep on developing it. These corporate entities probably have illiterate developers who think they can STEAL code and make modifications. All I can say is we should have a RIAAA type organization protecting OSS projects, to sue these companies to bankruptcy.
I just sent them an email saying I'm interested in seeing the code as it is open source and asking whether they have a page up yet to download it from...
I wonder how they'll respond... I didn't mention anything about my knowledge that the code hasn't been released yet or anything to do with Slashdot, just that I'd be interested in seeing the improvements they made
Only the copyright holder has any rights in the matter. They may grant rights to other parties, but only the copyright holder can bring legal action to enforce them. Further, the most they can do is enforce an injunction against further distribution, and perhaps some punitive damages.
What the (L)GPL does or does not say has no bearing.
Are we in a hurry?
I got a client hasn't paid me $800 in 22 days. That matters.
Who cares if a company's legal department takes 22 days to release source code? It takes most companies 22 days to find their ass with both hands.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Yes, but it's not immune to fragmentation or the effects fragmentation can have. I've seen Linux mail servers on ext2/3 that have absolutely terrible performance caused by disk fragmentation, and the admins absolutely refuse to believe there is a file system problem because they're drank the "ext2/3 doesn't need fragmenting" kool-aid. Once they switched to, say, XFS which has online defrag tools, the performance bottlenecks disappeared.
It's a myth. I don't like people spreading it. Fragmentation can and does affect Linux systems. Just because the system is resistant to the effects of it should not mean that you don't have to think about it. Linux is resistant to viruses and has a superior security model, too. Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about security vulnerabilities?
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
But the LGPL must be enforced, else there is no reason for potential contributors to trust it.
Some people are not looking at this correctly. Individual authors, not some "WINE" corporation, have altruistically given their time and effort to Open Source software. Then they put the LGPL header on their source files. Remember, this is NOT public domain code. It is still theirs. The LGPL takes non-public code and confers very generous freedoms to downstream users of the code. Basically all they want is for those users to be equally generous to others. It should not be too burdensome for people to be honest and respect the terms of such a well-intentioned gift.
I trust that this will all pass, and it will end up with all parties happy.
I'm curious to know how this is news. Waiting for your legal department to give you the OK before doing something is just covering your arse. If the legal department says that they can't release it, then that would be news.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Now seriously, let them use their legal department let them take some time to do what they are supposed to do, 22 days is not a lot of time, now, if the legal department says they shouldn't release the sourcecode that's when you are supposed to bombard SWSoft with blames of not complying with the GPL and blah blah blah
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
If they didn't want it public, then why did they put it on a PUBLIC forum such as their PUBLIC wiki?
I'm sure the wine devs could have set up a private, internal wiki page just to track this. Heck they could have set up a whole separate bugzilla install, locked it down, and tracked the progress there...
If you put something like this on a completely public wiki, when you are a large open source project, you have to know that slashdot is going to pick it up.
Actually, since the constitution was not written by, contracted to be written by, signed by, participated in, or otherwise involved with currently living rank and file US citizens, it has absolutely no bearing on what said rank and file citizen does, or does not, do.
Furthermore, it isn't a document that was ever aimed at US citizens, directly or indirectly. It is a document that specifies the limits within which the federal government may act.
It extends to the state governments to the extent that the 14th amendment requires the states to comply with the bill of rights, that is, amendments one through ten.
No contract your father signs can make you liable to the terms of the contract without your signature. You have to sign it. So even if the constitution directed US citizens to do (or not to do) A, B and C, you still wouldn't be obligated to obey those stipulations by virtue of the constitution itself.
The fact that the government has implemented copyright law is the only issue with any merit, and the only merit involved is that the government is prepared to enforce said law(s) using coercive force.
The (current) government's obligation to the constitution survives and transitions forward based upon oath and affirmation, as for example, the president's oath where he swears to...
The series of oaths can be found here.
This whole "social contract" thing is nonsense, and always has been.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Me thinks that troll text is a bit dated now.
Perhaps time the trolling community here started writing some new material?
CC: sb@swsoft.com, license@parallels.com, info@parallels.com, askben@parallels.com
X-CC-Certified-Mail: 660 SW 39th Street Suite #205, Renton, Washington 98057
Subject: Cease and desist notice
Attached: Contact information, Copy of the code that I authored and retain Copyright
A review of your Parallels product has shown that it contains machine code based on code that I am the copyright holder of. Royalty free redistribution of my work may only be performed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 (also referred to as the LGPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation. I now posses enough documentation that show a gross violation of the terms of this license. Also, the web page titled "Licensing information" indicates that SWSoft is aware of it's use of this code and it's licensing terms, hence it is my opinion this shows a willful violation on the part of SWSoft.
The actions on the part of SWSoft in regards to redistribution of my copyrighted works included in the Parallels product falls under Clause 8 of the LGPL which states: 8. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the Library except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the Library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
It is also important that you keep in mind that the act of unlicensed redistribution of my work will be treated as willful violation of the United State Copyright Law. I feel obligated to seek the maximum amount in damages for this willful violation. To minimize the accrued expense of the unauthorized redistribution of my work, it is recommended that SWSoft discontinue the infringing activity immediately.
See the attached contact information should you need to discuss this further.
See here
It can be statically linked, provided you distribute your program as object files (not necessarily source code). I do not know if it places any requirements on the format of said files, though (or the compiler used).
Here's a question: Does this protect from a certain bullshit kind of Tivo-ization, where the library is loaded dynamically by the program, but only after the program runs a checksum on the library?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
NT
...it's license violation. It's late here, I forgot to finish the sentence before submitting.
I bet some lawyer for the company is itching to see if the LGPL is up for a court test. I wonder if they're ready to put up hard cash in the form of billable legal hours and a challenge in court on the basic legal grounds point, value, and weight of the LGPL against American copyright law. It doesn't generate a large sum of money profit for someone so it must be challenged.
This is a possible scenario. Of course the contrary of this is also possible and they ultimately release the changes back to the rest of us.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
If they have acknowledged their use of GPL'd code, but are unwilling to release their changes in compliance with the GPL, it's more likely that they're asking a lawyer whether the employee who used GPL'd code represented the company, and if not, whether they can dodge compliance on that basis.
You ever deal with copyright complaints? I get them all the time. A former employee stuck an image from another site onto a site, nobody noticed, we get a DMCA take-down request.
I get notice from me ISP of the take-down request, they ask me to correct in 10 days.
If I can't in 10 days (takes longer to get a replacement image), I tell my ISP, and I work with their legal department, usually no problems if it is within 30 days. Outside of 30 days, they talk with the copyright holder, things get resolved.
You think that anyone else does it differently? If the BSA caught you using unlicensed software, well, to perform an audit they either need your permission or a court order, how fast do you think that happens? If you are caught owing money, how long do you think they'll give you to correct? I would expect 30 days, and if you can't in that time, you negotiate a longer period.
A small business has some unlicensed copies of Office, and agrees to an Audit, which finds that they need to buy $5000 in software. You think that the BSA expects them to comply that afternoon? Or what, shut down the business until they can get the cash? That's absurd, you either correct inside some window (10 days or 30 days), or negotiate a solution.
As far as I can tell, there is a "minor" issue, because it's LGPL and not GPL, we're not arguing that the whole package is illegal without source, just that they need to release their modifications to the library. So while the copyrights are being infringed, it is likely the modifications will be released and the copyright holders won't suffer any damages. We are 22 days in, so 16 business days into the matter, and the company as already acknowledged that there is a problem, and legal is looking at the matter to see what to do.
This to me is moving smoothly. The company has acknowledged an issue and is looking into how to resolve it. If you think that the copyright holders should threaten to sue, than frankly, you are crazy. What will they sue for? What damages are they suffering? They could probably get an injunction against Parallels shipping, but it's doubtful that they have any monetary damages seeing as how they give the software away for free. The company is working to correct.
You mention the RIAA, in all their harassment attempts, they ALWAYS offer to settle. You think that they are demanding a cashiers check that afternoon, or payment within 30 days.
On another note, if they are statically linking then they are supposed to provide source to the entire app.
if they don't respect our licenses . . . .
You can find serials and copies of parallels on isohunt.com and thepiratebay.org
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
How can you steal code? The code is still there after all. Kind of like stealing Music or Movies.
Interesting do you have to notify people that the code is available? What if you make changes to the library and try and contribute them back but they get declined?
All interesting wiggle ways to get around the GPL.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The moderator clearly thinks that copyright issues are off-topic with regard to the GPL.
Has slashdot found a way to intentionally select moderators with IQ's under 100?
Come on. Slashdot luminaries have unlimited mod points. Where the heck are they when the system is clearly being abused? I'm not saying I deserved an up-mod, but to be modded down out of sight for a serious, on-topic post — that's just ludicrous.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
AHHHH!!! That makes sense.
So to paraphrase you: "If you are a large open source project, expect people to not respect your expressed wishes".
OK, great, gotcha!