Possible GPL violation?

Possible GPL violation?

[Fredrik Persson]

Hi!

There was a post on this list about a year ago, concerning the OpenTV SDK Toolchain. Here is a link:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg01571.html

In short, these people ship software that is derived from gcc and related stuff, but it is very, very difficult to get the source code from them.

I have looked everywhere, but I cannot find any reference whatsoever as to how this went down. Is there anyone out there who knows anything about the inclusion of GPL'd software in the OpenTV SDK? Preferrably, a good way of making them mail you the source code! :)

Please, if there is anyone out there who has any information regarding this issue, help out. Naturally, I've emailed OpenTV a request for the source code in question, but I have recieved no sensible answer. I've waited for about a week.

I am new to this list, so please forgive me if I'm making anything terribly wrong here...

/Fredrik Persson

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Joe Buck]

> There was a post on this list about a year ago, concerning the OpenTV
> SDK Toolchain. Here is a link:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg01571.html

> In short, these people ship software that is derived from gcc and
> related stuff, but it is very, very difficult to get the source code
> from them.

Please see the web page

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

and if after reading that page you believe there is a violation,
contact the FSF at the address it gives.  The FSF vigorously enforces
the GPL on software it owns (such as GCC), though in most cases they just
work with the violator to correct the problem.

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Fredrik Persson]

I've done that. The FSF "GPL violation dept." (or whatever it may be called) 
had been in contact with these guys before and they (OpenTV) were not very 
cooperative. They've promised to work with me if the situation doesn't 
improve.

I'm thinking; don't get mad, get even. I may put this stuff on sourceforge if 
I get it.

Or... emailing it to the gcc core team may be a better idea.

/Fredrik Persson

On Wednesday 28 August 2002 19.16, Joe Buck wrote:
> Please see the web page
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
>
> and if after reading that page you believe there is a violation,
> contact the FSF at the address it gives.  The FSF vigorously enforces
> the GPL on software it owns (such as GCC), though in most cases they just
> work with the violator to correct the problem.

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Joe Buck]

I wrote:

> > Please see the web page
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

Fredrik Persson writes:

> I've done that. The FSF "GPL violation dept." (or whatever it may be called) 
> had been in contact with these guys before and they (OpenTV) were not very 
> cooperative. They've promised to work with me if the situation doesn't 
> improve.

Good.

> I'm thinking; don't get mad, get even. I may put this stuff on
> sourceforge if I get it.

That's fine.

> Or... emailing it to the gcc core team may be a better idea.

Sorry, we can't add anything to GCC without an assignment from its
copyright holder; you may as well save the bandwidth.

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Fredrik Persson]

Gotcha, no patches to the gcc team, but a rouge sourceforge.net-project. 
That'll make me sleep better at night! :)

/Fredrik Persson

On Wednesday 28 August 2002 21.02, Joe Buck wrote:
> > I'm thinking; don't get mad, get even. I may put this stuff on
> > sourceforge if I get it.
>
> That's fine.
>
> > Or... emailing it to the gcc core team may be a better idea.
>
> Sorry, we can't add anything to GCC without an assignment from its
> copyright holder; you may as well save the bandwidth.

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Bernd Jendrissek]

[Cc'ed to gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org from gcc@gcc.gnu.org]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:02:55PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> I wrote:
> 
> > > Please see the web page
> > >
> > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
> 
> Fredrik Persson writes:

[lost context - fp seems to have tried to get source to a GCC derivative]

> > I've done that. The FSF "GPL violation dept." (or whatever it may be called) 
> > had been in contact with these guys before and they (OpenTV) were not very 
> > cooperative. They've promised to work with me if the situation doesn't 
> > improve.

Previous attention by the FSF police notwithstanding, XYZZY Inc. is not
obliged to give you the source if it didn't already give you binaries.  I.e.
the GPL does not *require* you to distribute to anyone.  Just that when you
do, it specifies how and how much.

> > I'm thinking; don't get mad, get even. I may put this stuff on
> > sourceforge if I get it.

Hasn't Eben Moglen been hinting that he might like the idea of finally
"proving" the GPL in court?  A repeat offender wouldn't get much sympathy,
I imagine...

> > Or... emailing it to the gcc core team may be a better idea.
> 
> Sorry, we can't add anything to GCC without an assignment from its
> copyright holder; you may as well save the bandwidth.

Not even in contrib/ ?

-- 
berndfoobar@users.sourceforge.net is probably better to bookmark than any
employer-specific email address I may have appearing in the headers.
  Vanity page: http://www.tsct.co.za/~berndj/

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Florian Weimer]

Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> writes:

> Sorry, we can't add anything to GCC without an assignment from its
> copyright holder;

Exceptions are always possible. :-)

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Joe Buck]

> Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> writes:
> 
> > Sorry, we can't add anything to GCC without an assignment from its
> > copyright holder;

Florian Weimer writes:
> Exceptions are always possible. :-)

With a 3/4 SC approval plus RMS's consent.  Don't hold your breath.

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Bernd Jendrissek]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 06:24:58AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> <<Previous attention by the FSF police notwithstanding, XYZZY Inc. is not
> obliged to give you the source if it didn't already give you binaries.  I.e.
> the GPL does not *require* you to distribute to anyone.  Just that when you
> do, it specifies how and how much.
> >>
> 
> This is incorrect. If you opt for the written offer to supply the sources,
> as this company apparently has, then the following applies from the GPL:
> 
>     b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
>     years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
>     cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
>     machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
>     distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
>     customarily used for software interchange; or,
> 
> Note the "any third party" here. 

Thanks for whacking me with the clue-by-four.  Next time, I'll RTFL before
I make claims, *in spite* of thinking I know it by heart.  I could have
sworn that last time I read 3b it was "to supply" instead of "to give any
third party".  Amazing how fuzzy my memory is...

> Please read the GPL before making claims about it. The reason incidentally

Hey, everyone else makes claims without checking the facts!  :)  Yes, a
real problem of misinformation: it feeds on itself, as I just demonstrated.

> for the "any third party" here is to make it reasonably easy to do further
> distributions. This means you can send the objects to someone along with
> a copy of the original written offer rather than forcing you to excercise
> the written offer before redistributing.
> 
> The GPL is quite clear about this:
> 
>     c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
>     to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
>     allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BTW what exactly is "noncommercial distribution" here?

>     received the program in object code or executable form with such
>     an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> 
> 
> Now if you take alternative a)
> 
>     a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
>     source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
>     1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
> 
> Then indeed you have no obligation to third parties.

As punishment, I'll dig up a couple links.

GPL and NDAs: I was thinking of this thread while lying about the GPL
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22gpl+%2Band+ndas%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=386E890B.1B191CB%40gmx.de&rnum=1

What IS the Amiga SDK: It seems this has been argued before
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gpl+%22any+third+party%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=cerkksk0vahd3vabslgc7a9oa35tuqpbqp%404ax.com&rnum=1

How not to follow the GNU GPL: Much closer to this thread
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gpl+obligation+third&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=6ki98e%24dq%241%40jaka.ece.uiuc.edu&rnum=5

Zaphod Beeblebrox.  I'd like my $10 now, please.

bernd

-- 
berndfoobar@users.sourceforge.net is probably better to bookmark than any
employer-specific email address I may have appearing in the headers.
  Vanity page: http://www.tsct.co.za/~berndj/

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Robert Dewar]

<<Previous attention by the FSF police notwithstanding, XYZZY Inc. is not
obliged to give you the source if it didn't already give you binaries.  I.e.
the GPL does not *require* you to distribute to anyone.  Just that when you
do, it specifies how and how much.
>>

This is incorrect. If you opt for the written offer to supply the sources,
as this company apparently has, then the following applies from the GPL:

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

Note the "any third party" here. 

Please read the GPL before making claims about it. The reason incidentally
for the "any third party" here is to make it reasonably easy to do further
distributions. This means you can send the objects to someone along with
a copy of the original written offer rather than forcing you to excercise
the written offer before redistributing.

The GPL is quite clear about this:

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)


Now if you take alternative a)

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

Then indeed you have no obligation to third parties.

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Fredrik Persson]

Well, I'd think that the GPL, at least implicitly, speaks about some kind of 
timeframe. Otherwise, they could tell me that "sure, we'll mail you the 
source code, in 25-30 years."

/Fredrik Persson

On Wednesday 28 August 2002 21.05, Joe Buck wrote:
> It appears then that they include a written offer, which satisfies the
> GPL.  It doesn't appear that the GPL provides any time limit to how fast
> they need to respond.

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Joe Buck]

> Oh, I know all about that. Problem is, they're not doing anything at all, 
> basically. They're just stalling the whole thing. First, they don't keep an 
> ftp-site or a webpage where you can download it. The only way to get the 
> source code is to email a certain guy. This is stated in a readme file.

It appears then that they include a written offer, which satisfies the
GPL.  It doesn't appear that the GPL provides any time limit to how fast
they need to respond.

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Fredrik Persson]

Oh, I know all about that. Problem is, they're not doing anything at all, 
basically. They're just stalling the whole thing. First, they don't keep an 
ftp-site or a webpage where you can download it. The only way to get the 
source code is to email a certain guy. This is stated in a readme file. So, 
that's what I did. Turns out that guy is not in charge anymore, and the guy 
he forwarded my request to just forwarded it to some other department. (The 
"release dept.", as he said.) 

Why all this trouble? I mean, what's wrong with a tarball on their webpage? I 
get a feeling that obtaining the source code may not be that easy. They're 
not very cooperative.

/Fredrik Persson

On Wednesday 28 August 2002 19.49, Robert Dewar wrote:
>  code! :)
>
>
> They have no obligation to distribute the source code at no cost. But they
> can only charge a reasonable amount for the source code (of course if they
> custom make a CD ROM this cost may be non-zero), and they must distribute a
> written offer outlining the costs.

Re: Possible GPL violation?

[Robert Dewar]

 code! :)


They have no obligation to distribute the source code at no cost. But they can
only charge a reasonable amount for the source code (of course if they custom
make a CD ROM this cost may be non-zero), and they must distribute a written
offer outlining the costs.