Emacs Has Been Violating the GPL Since 2009

Digana writes "Emacs, one of GNU's flagship products and the most famous software creation of Richard Stallman, has been discovered to be violating the GPL since 2009-09-28 by distributing binaries that were missing source. The CEDET package, a set of contributed files for giving certain IDE functionality related to static code analysis, has distributed files generated from bison grammars without distributing the grammar itself. This happened for Emacs versions 23.2 and 23.3, released during late 2009, and has just been discovered."

Comments

BURN THE WITCH!!

[elrous0]

I saw them consorting with Lucifer in the fields--with mine own eyes, I did! They was compiling binaries with unreleased source and plotting against FOSS hippies, they was!

Re:BURN THE WITCH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And they compiled me into a newt.

Is that really a GPL violation?

[FooAtWFU]

I was really under the impression that the GPL said you had to distribute the source to anyone you sent the binaries if they actually bothered to request it. I mean, usually that means you publish both, just as a matter of convenience, but not of necessity.

Re:Is that really a GPL violation?

[HarrySquatter]

Mod parent up. There is no stipulation in the GPL that source code must accompany any distribution of binaries. Total myth.

Then you better make sure rms knows this since he's the one apparently pertuating this "total myth". You know, since he was the one who wrote the email saying that Emacs was in violation of the GPL.

Re:How does this happen?

[Enleth]

The problem in this case is that the concepts of "source code" and "object code" are a bit fuzzy with generated code that is GPL-licensed.

Someone wrote the bison grammar files (which are the missing source code in this case) and "compiled" them, by running bison over them. The resulting files were "object code" in the light of GPL, as they're not really intended nor suitable to be read or edited by a human (and the GPL's definition of source code is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"), but at the same time, they were still technically source code, as in something that can be fed to another compiler, together with the actual source code of Emacs to build the executable Emacs binary.

Thus, the final binary can be recreated from those tarballs just fine, because *technically* it's the full Emacs source code all right. Legally, though, it's not, because of the definitions in GPL.

Did anyone ASK for that source?

[Anonymous Coward]

If not, then it's not breaking GPL.

Re:Did anyone ASK for that source?

[BitZtream]

Not really strange, no one cares except pedants who were too busy slurping Stallman's wiener and bitching about everyone else to notice their own hypocrisy.

This is simply no big deal, the source to the files IS available. There really ISN'T a GPL violation. Its just not in a specific set of packages, which there is no requirement for it to be so.

The GPL requires the source to be available, it is, its just not included by default, which is perfectly acceptable.

Second, in order for this to be a violation, the authors of said files have to call it a violation. You (nor I) get the right to determine its a violation (again, this goes contrary to what most GPL zealots think). The copyright holder does, to which, the copyright holder may have granted an exception or special license to Emacs for this purpose.

The only thing going on here is a few people getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. Another fine example of why any intelligent company keeps as far away from GPL as possible, the followers of the Cult of GPL will happily stab themselves in the eye because a doctor gives them pink eye medicine.

If the original author of these files hasn't bitched, there is no violation. If he or she has/is then we have something to talk about, but I find it highly unlikely that said person will be raising much hooha about it.

Mistakes happen, everyone needs to not go retarded nuts over shit like this in relation to the GPL, you just make yourselfs look like a bunch of dick heads.

(Note: This post isn't entirely directed at the person I'm responding too, just happens to be the place I decided to post my thoughts)

Re:Did anyone ASK for that source?

[Chris Burke]

The GPL requires the source to be available, it is, its just not included by default, which is perfectly acceptable.

No, it isn't available, which is the entire problem.

If you downloaded the source package for emacs from the repositories of your chosen distro, you would not receive the files in question.

Again: Many organizations are distributing emacs binaries, but not making the full source available. That's a GPL violation.

Second, in order for this to be a violation, the authors of said files have to call it a violation

That's simply not true. If you are not in compliance with the terms of a license agreement, then you are not in compliance with the terms of that license agreement whether anyone knows or cares that you are.

For this violation to result in legal action the copyright holder has to know and care.

The only thing going on here is a few people getting their panties in a bunch over nothing.

It isn't nothing, but it also isn't a huge deal because the non-compliance was accidental and the solution straightforward.

The response seems commensurate with the issue. Oh Shit we screwed up, but oh well shit happens.

How about you just ignore whatever few people you see as over-reacting as the outliers they are, and I'll ignore the idiocy you spouted immediately after the last quote up there. Deal?

text of RMS's mail

[ciaran_o_riordan]

For anyone who didn't click the link, here's RMS's reaction:

We have made a very bad mistake. Anyone redistributing those versions is violating the GPL, through no fault of his own.

We need to fix those releases retroactively (or else delete them), and we need to do it right away.

I see two quick ways to fix them: to delete the compiled files, or to add the sources they are made from.

From the mail linked to in the story: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2011-07/msg01155.html

Re:text of RMS's mail

[Beelzebud]

People seem to love hating on this guy, but let's look at how he handled the situation:

"We have made a very bad mistake."

No PR bullshit, or excuses, just acknowledgment followed by a suggested solution. In this day it's not often you see that above-quoted sentence. Especially from know-it-alls on the internet who just shoot spitballs at people who get things done.

You know what to do, RMS

[AdmiralXyz]

It's a good thing people gave Stallman that katana after the xkcd strip came out, because there's now only one option. Reclaim your honor, sir.

Re:The sad thing is...

[AdamWill]

Yes. And this is what happens all the time in F/OSS license violation cases. No-one pays out zillions of dollars: they fix the infringement. Happens to hardware vendors who haven't got a clue, malicious software vendors who got caught, well-intentioned ones who made a mistake...happens all the time. I dunno why this is suddenly news.

(For example, I suspect it's somewhat unlikely that any Linux distribution's 'F/OSS only' repositories are actually F/OSS only. The distros which take license compliance most seriously - Debian and Fedora/Red Hat - actively search out licensing issues, find them all the time, and get them resolved. This is a deeply un-sexy ongoing background process which most people are shielded from by the power of not giving a crap. But yeah, since we've been finding licensing issues that affect all distros that haven't been caught in years _all the time_, it seems unreasonable to assume that the last big one we found was the last one and everything's fine now.)

tl;dr summary: licensing is hard, mmkay?

Re:How does this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

they're not really intended nor suitable to be read or edited by a human

You mean, like Perl ?