Slashdot Mirror
Wordpress Founder Accuses Wix Of Stealing Code (ma.tt)
An anonymous reader writes:
"Wow, dude I did not even know we were fighting," Wix CEO Avishai Abrahami posted on the company's blog Saturday -- responding to Wordpress creator Matt Mullenweg, who on Friday accused Wix of stealing their code. "The claim is that the Wix mobile apps distribute GPL code and aren't themselves GPL, so they violate the license," Mullenweg wrote.
Abrahami argued that "Everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source," adding "we will release the app you saw as well... " Mullenweg responded "It appears you and [lead engineer] Tal might share a misunderstanding of how the GPL works," ultimately adding "software licensing can be tricky and many people make honest mistakes."
Wix had also argued they're giving back to the open source community by listing 224 public projects on their GitHub page. "Thank you for the offer to use them," Mullenweg responded. "If we do, we'll make sure to follow the license you've put on the code very carefully."
Abrahami argued that "Everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source," adding "we will release the app you saw as well... " Mullenweg responded "It appears you and [lead engineer] Tal might share a misunderstanding of how the GPL works," ultimately adding "software licensing can be tricky and many people make honest mistakes."
Wix had also argued they're giving back to the open source community by listing 224 public projects on their GitHub page. "Thank you for the offer to use them," Mullenweg responded. "If we do, we'll make sure to follow the license you've put on the code very carefully."
People who READ the GPL can figure it out. Those who INTERPRET it to suit their own agenda get it wrong (like SCSI specs, for example).
If you publish a program that incorporates GPL (not LGPL) source, you have to make that source, plus any of your changes, plus instructions/tools to build the program to those to whom you have distributed the program (no distribution -> no requirement), and you can not use a more-restrictive license on the program source. Putting the bundle on a web site is acceptable, but NOT a requirement, as long as you provide the bundle at nominal charge to the recipients of the program. You do NOT have to give it to anyone else.
They didn't remove GPL v3 software, they never used it in the first place. If software updates to GPL v3, they stick with the older v2 version or replace it.
How is there even any wiggle room? If you distribute a app that contains GPL code, you must make your source code available, period.
Folks in general tolerate a little lag between app release and code release, but if you actually want to follow the spirit of the GPL, your source should be available at the time of distribution because you don't really have a fully valid license to distribute your GPL containing work until it is.
Trolling, much?
The GPL is about 15 pages (including the preamble). It's much more readable than most contracts and licenses.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
MOST embedded operating systems and compilers and libraries used by MOST companies are in fact GPL. Linux runs in almost ALL embedded systems like TV sets, BluRay players from Sony,LG,Samsung,Sharp,Panasonic,NEC,etc..., Every single Android Cellphone and Tablet ever made. Most automation systems use GPL tools in their compilers Like AMX,Crestron,TI,Intel, and all the little players like Samung Smartthings, Wink, etc.... In fact it's hard to find a company NOT using a GPL codebase somewhere, even Microsoft does.
So I really think you need to update your knowledge of what businesses are using, because it seems the entirety of all you know about it is from 1995.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Mullenweg: your app uses GPL code so you have to obey the licence, which you're not doing.
Abrahami: OH WE LOVE OPEN SOURCE WE PUT STUFF ON GITHUB ALL THE TIME
what a prick
Github has a page attempting to hit the bullet points of obligations - http://choosealicense.com/lice...
You can't use a more permissive licence without question.
You absolutely can't re-licence other peoples code in ways that give more rights than the authors gave with the licence without their consent.
in some cases other licences are compatible with the GPL.
This is absolutely false. Please stop posting this kind of FUD. Using a piece of GPL'd software does not magically infect your copyrighted code with the GPL. Using code under the terms of the GPL is absolutely no different from using code under *any other* source code license. If you use GPL'd code inappropriately you will find yourself in a copyright violation situation. Again I repeat this is no different than if you violated Microsoft's copyright or any other proprietary code license. When you are in a copyright violation situation you have three choices:
1. comply with the license by making your code also GPL
2. negotiate a suitable license with the copyright holders
3. remove the GPL'd code and write your own code
The copyright holders can demand monetary compensation form the violator, but they can't force a company to GPL their own proprietary code.
Errr... Linux is still licensed under the GPLv2.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I feel that the viral licensing clauses in GPL v3 will ultimately hinder the further development of software.
While Apple (as an example) were using GPL v2 licensed code, they were actively contributing patches and changes back to the relevant projects. This was good, it meant that we had professional developers who were paid to work on these projects and the changes they made were contributed back upstream.
Now that no corporation can touch any GPL v3 licensed code, we now have fragmentation and less developers working on open source code bases.
Apple, for example, have had to implement their own SMB stack as smbx, instead of using Samba. For a number of years, SMB compatibility and functionality took a huge step backwards on OS X, all because the Samba project started to use GPL v3. This ended up with developers who would have been working on patches and changes for Samba, instead working on their own closed-source implementation that, quite frankly, was nowhere near as good or as mature as Samba. The end result of this was that Apple's customers suffered with a sub par product and the Samba project suffered with fewer people contributing to it.
Who then benefits from GPL v3?
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
If you include GPL v3 code in your closed source project, under the terms of the licence agreement, you must comply with the licence which demands either you licence the software or you release ALL of the source of your closed-source project under the GPL v3.
If you are producing a large, closed-source, product, option 1 is not an option at all.
If you can't negotiate a licence with the copyright holders, or the copyright holders are unwilling to licence it to you on terms that are acceptable to both parties then option 2 is not an option at all.
So, this leaves only option 3 - remove all GPL'd code from your project and write your own.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Apple, for example, have had to implement their own SMB stack as smbx, instead of using Samba. For a number of years, SMB compatibility and functionality took a huge step backwards on OS X, all because the Samba project started to use GPL v3. This ended up with developers who would have been working on patches and changes for Samba, instead working on their own closed-source implementation that, quite frankly, was nowhere near as good or as mature as Samba.
I asked a lead developer at Samba about this at the time (Tridge), and he said it was fine, Apple wasn't contributing very much anyway.
It was really Apple's loss (and their customers) in that case.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
With V2, you could link to GPL'd code, or use GPL'd libraries, in your closed source project and that was OK. If you made changes to the GPL'd code, you needed to make the source for the changes available to anyone who you distributed the software to.
No, this is very much not true. What you are describing is the LGPL, not the GPL2.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
'Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) versus Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain Antennas, LLC'
A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance --
"How exactly the GPL works is still unclear as not many cases have gone through the courts. I know that because of this most companies absolutely prohibit any open source code within a mile of their commercial applications, even in cases where a light reading of the GPL would suggest it is ok to do so. Remember the GPL is designed to be viral. You don't want to run the risk of violating the GPL by inadvertently infecting your proprietary closed source code." link
I feel that the viral licensing clauses in GPL v3 will ultimately hinder the further development of software.
I think it's great for educational/learning/teaching purposes and bad for business situations. I think it's restricted itself out of practical usage, in it's determination to be open and not restrictive, it's achieved the opposite. Based on the amount of MIT licenses I see on github and in source, I think many people share this view.
Exactly this.
The biggest changes with GPLv3 were the introduction of downstream patent amnesty and anti-tivoization clauses. NOT library changes. GPL2 expressly prohibits linking from non-GPLed code.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
that was true a long time ago, but I doubt it being true anymore, because all stats point otherwise and it's pretty hard to find even a home applicance or electronic product that uses either of them - or even a car.
with linux running ome appliances now, tv's, phones and routers.
it's more probable that any given house had 1-4 devices running linux whilst they might have 0 running vxworks. I doubt many microwave ovens run vxworks too. probably just a microcontroller.
thing is, you can do pretty complex stuff with just microcontrollers, without a proper os to speak of, whilst anything more complicated tends to run linux. in the end there isn't really that much of things you would actually use qnx or vxworks for, even in more complex things where you would build things modularly.
for a factory thats different but there's a lot less factories than houses, you know. and even there vxworks and qnx would be much less attractive than 15 years ago. if you want realtime control you can just use a microcontroller, perhaps with megabytes of memory on the chip itself. if you need something to feed stuff to those microcontrollers you can just use a linux soc in there.
even in things like 3d printers basically nobody is even considering vxworks/qnx solutions for running them - and with qnx being in rather questionable hands at the moment nobody wants to bet on that train either.
at least if you speak about shipping embedded products, qnx and vxworks are pretty much dead.
if you count mobile phones then linux has been bigger than qnx and vxworks in embedded for more than half a decade. even in cars they are losing market share fast.
so there is no actual place in the market for qnx and vxworks anymore like they had before. even in realtime control things have changed.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The GPL3 isn't a single bit more 'viral' than the GPL2 which Apple had used - so clearly virality had nothing to do with their decision.
Apple however is the grand pubahs of walled gardens, hardware lock-downs/lock-ins and patent insanity -things the GPL3 does pursue more strenuously - specifically there are rules in there that states that if your program is meant for a particular device you cannot make it so modified versions cannot run on the same device (AKA the TIVO problem).
That is what Apple doesn't like about GPL3 - they can't allow you to make modified versions of something while still preventing you from USING those versions.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
If you don't check the license on a library BEFORE you use it then you're incompetent at best.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>The only area where the GPL is clear is statically linked C code, everything else is very open to interpretation
No. It is not.
>Now somebody comes along, takes all the graphics and releases a proprietary game with them.
Absolutely and without any doubt. If the graphics were under the same license as the code, then any other game using them is a derivative work and must also be GPLd. You may be confused because of the REAL scenarios where game code is GPLd but the assets are under a proprietory license (ID software releases for example) but then it's also perfectly cleared. The GPL applies to the code, the proprietary license to the assets.
> but loads them from the web or straight out of your git repository or their fork of your git repository
That would be a violation. Unless he's found a magical way to load them without copying them to disk or memory ? In which case it's still unclear that it wouldn't be a violation. About the only way you could argue it isn't a violation is if the program randomly finds image using something like google-image-search and happened to pull your assets in by random chance - with no particular dependence on those images. A generic program that hit something randomly would probably be deemed fair use.
> What if it's not graphics, but interpreted code code?
A violation. No doubt about it. The GPL applies to anything copyrightable that it is applied to. No exceptions exist - and none of your examples are exceptions because there are no such thing as exceptions. Eben Moglen knows the law better than you do.
>At what point do the assets require the rest of the code released under GPL
At the moment when you distribute something that uses them. There are no exceptions.
> You can go with "never", "always" or "up to a judge's interpretation".
The answer is 'always' - there is no doubt about that, and as it happens - no sane judge would interpret it any other way than 'always'.
> On one side, if you use one of their GPLed libraries, your main app shall be released as GPL as well.
Yes. No doubt about it. No exception.
>. But on the other side they want the right to clone proprietary APIs without adhering to the license
Cloning an API is not 'linking to a library' and until just a few months ago no court had ever considered it a copyrightable thing. Even then API cloning was held to be fair use - so it's still not an issue, and not a conflict at all. And yes, you are perfectly allowed to clone the API of a GPL'd library without GPL-ing your code, as long as you implement the library yourself.
> Shall APIs have copyright or not? The FSF wants it both ways.
No they don't. APIs should not be copyrightable - but whether they are or not has NOTHING to do with linking to/using a GPL'd LIBRARY. The two actions have nothing in common. If you want to create a proprietary API-compatible clone of the GPL'd GNU/readline library - the FSF will not do anything to stop you. You're allowed to do that, but if you use the readline library they implemented then your program must be GPLd as well.
You are conflating two things which have nothing in common to create a false narative.
All I can interpret is that you must be busy practising for your interview to work as an Oracle Shill.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *