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.

Comments

legal approval?

[timmarhy]

haha, what the fuck are they waiting for legal approval for? is legal going to tell them it's ok to violate someone elses copyright?

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.

Be patient

[Rix]

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.

Re:Be patient

[kripkenstein]

Be patient

Excellent advice in general, and in this case specifically. As the Wine project's wiki page says,

This page is meant for keeping track of this, without starting legal action or a publicity campaign yet.

...but someone decided to post it to Slashdot, and the editors published it (effectively starting a 'publicity campaign' of sorts). That was really unnecessary. Sure, SWSoft said they would reply in 'days' and it has been weeks, but weeks is still very little time. I agree with the Wine people on that.

As for why they are waiting for 'confirmation from their legal department' or such, who knows, perhaps the lawyers just need to sign off on it and one of them is on vacation. Or perhaps the code contains snippets from other code sources and they need to ascertain some issues first. It does make sense to be careful before publishing source code - although, true, they should have been careful *before* distributing the binaries.

For a lawyers opinion

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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:

When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not. Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.

Point is, lawyers are slow, and companies often use them to prevent negative, unforseen consequences. Give them more time before crucifying/boycotting/etc. instinctively.

Re:For a lawyers opinion

[SanityInAnarchy]

The license expressly states that the reason for the LGPL is to allow proprietary software to use the library in some ways.

But if I understand this, they have modified the library itself, and not released their changes. The LGPL lets you link with a library, including using the library's official header files, without your program being considered a derivative work of the library -- your own code does not have to be LGPL'd.

However, the library itself is still LGPL'd, and anything you do with it must still have source code released.

Point is, lawyers are slow, and companies often use them to prevent negative, unforseen consequences. Give them more time before crucifying/boycotting/etc. instinctively.

I'm sorry, the time lawyers have to work this out is before the software is released. They are now in violation.

Let's say I start beating the shit out of you, and you tell me to stop. Should I stop, or should I call my lawyer and wait a week for him to tell me it's OK to stop (during which time I'm still kicking you)? The correct answer is I should stop, and for that matter, I should never have started. My lawyer should have told me not to kick you in the first place.