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

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.

Contant the CEO

[SolitaryMan]

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

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.