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.
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....
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.
is flabbergasted that their developers embarked upon something where they have to release their code... Except it isn't the developer's code. They do work for hire after all, and their code is SWSoft's. Maybe they didn't have permission to use LGPL code in their product?
I admit is seems unlikely however. I just want to point out that many people don't have the freedom at work to decide things like that. If I tried to incorporate F/OSS code into my work, I would lose my job, and the code would get pulled.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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!
> Think for a moment and stop going off like an idiot.
i buteWithSourceOnInternet
> 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.
Wtf are you talking about ? The thing is as clear cut as it can be. In http://www.parallels.com/en/licensing/ parallels says that you have to send a request to "license@parallels.com" to get the source code. Legalities like the right to distribute software should not be handled AFTER the sale, but BEFORE.
As a paying parallels 3.0 customer, I sent an email, asking for the source code. Either they send me the source code in a reasonable delay, or I will ask for a refund (because they are sending me software they have NO RIGHT to distribute).
> Companies that sold CDs and simply put links on their website to their modified code weren't complying with the GPL.
Wtf? How can you get modded insighful ? Parallels 3.0 is only available via the net, so they only have to provide the link on the net. Here is the corresponding serction of the FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistr
"I want to distribute binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.
If you distribute binaries via FTP, you should distribute source via FTP."
Cheers,
--fred
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.
I don't think anyone's arguing they are out of compliance with their license. The question is whether 1-2 days is a reasonable timeframe to correct a legal matter. These guys don't appear to be doing anything except being a little slow to respond to legal inquiries-- they are showing every intention of complying and show a basic understanding of what they have to do. Just give them a little time.
E pluribus unum