Open source author pulls code after GPL abuse | Hacker News Reader

Open source author pulls code after GPL abuse

theregister.co.uk

26 pointsiProject48 comments

I actually tried and find the GPL violations since I'm curious and would like to make up my own mind. So far without luck. All I can see is that the author accuses other people of creating closed forks (fine with the gpl IMHO) and renaming the product (fine with the gpl IMHO) and that one product is being sold on a commercial license. He neither adds any pointer which product that might be or how he thinks that the other actions harm the GPL. I'd love to see a more extensive statement on that so I can follow his reasoning. Until then, I'm a bit divided about this issue - it looks a little as if he feels slighted and ripped off by others and tries to retaliate while harming the community in the process.

Edit: I meant by "fork" the "github fork" as the author of mayan did. So a "closed fork" would be to fork the project to closed github repo.

> creating closed forks (fine with the gpl IMHO)

That's not fine. At the very least, you have to provide the source code for your (entire) product if a customer demands it.

As far as i have been able to figure out, what 'entire product' relates to is not 100% clear cut. AFAICT, you could easily segregate the parts of your product you wish to be private, and just modify the GPL code to inferface with that (you would tehn have to release this part).

No, the license says that if you distribute executables or libraries that link to, or contain GPL licensed code, all the source code of those executables and/or libraries must be released under the GPL or a GPL compatible license.

What you're saying works with the LGPL license though (you can have closed source code that links to LGPL licensed code, as long as it's possible to re-compile the LGPL code and use the new version - which is easiest done by just having the LGPL code in a dynamic/shared library).

But it is "linked to or contain GPL code" - if you hive off the functionality and interface to it via, say TCP, you actually are good to go, even with the GPL. This technique does work for a certain small set of use cases.

That's because of the OS functionality exception in the GPL. LibC is also LGPL to allow any source to link to it.

I'm not exactly sure what the exact definition of 'linked to' would be?

My understanding was that you could- for example, (if necessary) modify a GPL executable so that it could be interfaced via unix sockets, and then use this to communicate with your own code. This would work exactly the same as if you created a gpl program to interface with a pre-existing closed-source program.. they would be two separate programs, working together for one aim.

Am i wrong?

Similarly, if i were to create an appliance with private code using linux, and included say samba for file transferring, this would not mandate the release of all code, as there would be no direct link between samba and the application code (although constituent parts of the same product). Otherwise how could closed source software be distributed with linux distros?

I believe that the definition they use is in statically linking to object code at compile time or dynamically linking at runtime [1].

So, I guess you could use Unix sockets to interface with the library to get around that, but you'd have to open-source the modifications to the library that make it accessible over Unix sockets.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linker_(computing)

As long as the fork is only used in-house I'm the customer. I do have access to my own source code. GPL is satisfied. I might as well create a closed fork and hand over the code to the people that buy my product. I can't place any restrictions on what they do with the modified source, but as long as I give them access to the source as required by the GPL that's fine as well. If they choose not to redistribute - fine as well. I might even create a closed fork for tinkering and not do anything with it. It's not the act of creating a closed fork that violates the GPL. It's redistribution without source - and that's independent of wether it's a fork or the original version.

redistribution in a non-compatible license is also a GPL violation. Source present or not. You can't release a forked GPL product under e.g. the BSD license

That's basically what I said: The GPL violation can happen on redistribution - but it doesn't happen on forking the project.

From the GPL's perspective, a closed GitHub fork isn't really any different from running your own source control locally.

(I'd say it's that way from any reasonable perspective, too. There's nothing wrong with wanting to do your tinkering in private.)

And even for software that's being redistributed there's never been any requirement in the GPL that you have to make your source control public. The GPL's conditions can just as easily be met by distributing your software along with a tarball of the version of the source that was used to build it.

Actually you can meet the license by including a written offer to supply the source on demand. There's no requirement to provide the source along with the binary. You're even allowed to charge reasonable costs for sending the source. So you could in theory go and include a statement that the source is available on dvd and you charge 10 euros for shipping and handling.

Section 6 from the GPL (distribution of non source-forms)

    b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
    (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
    written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
    long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
    model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
    copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
    product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
    medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
    more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
    conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
    Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

It makes things harder for the people that want to just contribute and is not nice in general, but it's covered by the license.

Like other recent complaints about people abusing licences, this doesn't seem so obvious:

> If you fork Mayan EDMS into a closed or private respository, stop and think about what you are doing because you going about it the wrong way.

Wouldn't his definition of "fork" mean that nobody would be able to check out the source repository to view it?

> Likewise if you fork Mayan EDMS and the first patch you commit is to change the name, stop. It has come to my attention that there are a number of unauthorized forks of Mayan EDMS being offered for download as if the original version was being abandoned

As long as the upstream is attributed, does the GPL3 explicitly prohibit this? If people are not displaying the GPL licence and attribution, that is obviously a violation, but this doesn't necessarily mean that.

> and at least one fork is being sold with a comercial license to add insult to injury.

I don't know enough about the GPL to know if you can "sell" GPL software (with sources and attribution, of course, which these might have)

> These violators have been listed in a new page called GPL violations.

Listing is one thing, but no information on what specifically they have done or whether he has contacted them to request they comply/sent C&D. Removing the development source just seems to be like throwing a tantrum - you are always going to get people who try to abuse GPL, and the only way to avoid it is to fight them, or close the licence (which is complicated if you have accepted user contributions).

(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a free software enthusiast)

> As long as the upstream is attributed, does the GPL3 explicitly prohibit this? If people are not displaying the GPL licence and attribution, that is obviously a violation, but this doesn't necessarily mean that.

The GPL doesn't require attribution, merely that you comply with the terms of the GPL, in terms of making sure that any derived works are covered under the GPL. In fact, the GPL is incompatible with some versions of the BSD license because they require attribution. It's quite sensible to rename a project if you fork it so as to not violate the original developers trademark on the name (e.g. debian referring to their build of Firefox as Iceweasel)

> I don't know enough about the GPL to know if you can "sell" GPL software (with sources and attribution, of course, which these might have)

The GPL has no prohibitions against selling software covered under the GPL, as long as the software is licensed under the GPL and the source is made available. If selling GPL software were a violation of the terms of the GPL then companies like Redhat and Oracle could not sell their commercial distributions of Linux. This is why the FSF is careful to use the term "proprietary software" instead of "commercial software", since there is nothing in the GPL to prevent the software from being commercialized as long as it complies with the license.

Let's check the some facts. (Conclusions: the author seems right.)

The application author claims that, among the others, a "DocuManager" application bundled its software and sold it with 1) disclosing that the original software is his "Mayan EDMS" 2) abiding to the licence (GPLv2).

Google tells us that there are two DocuManager applications:

1) http://www.evolusoft.com/documanager.html

2) http://documanager.co.uk/

3) http://www.documanager.de/

Point 1: Mayan EDMS is not properly credited.

A search for "mayan site:X" did not find anything in any of these sites. The author seems right.

Point 2: GPL terms not respected.

One of the GPL terms deals with the fact that you must distribute the licence text itself or offer a way to do so. The string GPL must, thus, appear somewhere in the site.

The query in this case is "GPL site:X". Site 1 and 3 have no page with the term GPL inside. Site 2 instead seems to talk about a GPL version and a commercial, extended, closed version: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&...

As is for point 1, author is right about point 2 for all these three applications.

We do not know which software the author of Mayam EDMS was referring to when he wrote "DocuManager", but, in any case, none of the three surveyed applications seems to fulfil the licence terms.

documanager.de is a portal that revolves around document management. There seems to be a magazine and an expert exchange/consulting business attached, but it's not a product. So they certainly don't infringe.

documanager.co.uk seems to be a windows native application and has the sites copyright tag set to 2005. An unlike candidate for infringement on a django-based python webapp.

evolusofts application runs on IIS and Microsoft SQL Server. It provides a twain scanner interface. Also an unlikely candidate - thought it just might be. Still, I don't buy it without another indicator other than the matching name.

Conclusion: Your post seems wrong. They simply don't mention Mayan or the GPL since they're not based on a GPL product.

I did a quick google search for the other two infringing products, and I get nothing for "Kratos 0.12.3". The only hit is the original source.

MagicDocs does get a hit, but the last time it was updated on download.com was 2005, well before Mayan EDMS even existed.

I can confirm that. I can find neither of the alleged violations which makes it harder for me to believe the story. I sympathise with the author, but at the moment I don't buy it in full.

> The query in this case is "GPL site:X". Site 1 and 3 have no page with the term GPL inside.

GPL has no requirement that the site make any mention of the license. It says the license must be included with the distribution. So check the download...

You are allowed to sell GPL software as long as you also give out the source and a copy of the original license.

If this goes against the "spirit of the license", there should be provisions against it.

I also would like to know how this is a "free" license. The author is basically saying, you can use my source code, but only in the ways that I agree to.

This doesn't sound very free to me.

This is the reason why companies should stop using GPL software in their applications.

Did you even read the article? He says "one fork is being sold with a comercial [sic] license". Commercial licence != GPL.

Given the general confusion in the post over what the GPL actually means, and what they thinks it means, It's not a given that the author doesn't just think that "Being Sold == Commercial Licence"

It's possible he means something like an EULA, but I can't seem to find any solid information on any of these three products (which have incredibly generic names) to check. It's not allowed to redistribute GPL software with added license requirements (as often found in an EULA), since you can't add restrictions on downstream users other than those already in the GPL.

I don't know the terms of the commercial licence in question. But GPL programs can be sold.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMone... Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney) Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Selling (or for that matter, distribution of any kind) GPL software under a different licence is not allowed. If you want to sell, you have to keep the GPL licence.

Commercial license for what? Support?

Until there is more evidence this is just a developer who misunderstands what the license entitles others to do with his work.

> I also would like to know how this is a "free" license. The author is basically saying, you can use my source code, but only in the ways that I agree to.

When the "ways that I agree to" are that you must provide your users with the following 4 things

> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

> The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

I don't see how it's not a free license. Unless your idea of freedom is the right to monopolistic and rent seeking behaviour. Which I guess is a perfectly legitimate freedom to want, personally I just don't have any desire to give it you.

It seems like the author is aware of this: https://plus.google.com/108413286958999778262/posts/UTSF2mZ7...

But besides that, I think he overreacts a bit. Maybe my google-fu is not strong today but I couldn't find any of the forks he is talking about.

oh please; "This is the reason why companies should stop using GPL software in their applications." ?

You're just trolling now.

There are plenty of reasons not to use GPL, but obscure reasons to do with the 'spirit of the license' isn't one of them.

If this goes against the "spirit of the license", there should be provisions against it.

It doesn't. RMS encourages people to sell GPL licensed software, written by them or not, and to charge as much as they can or want.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Seems a bit odd.

If someone is violating GPL then get in touch with the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/) and talk enforcement with them.

If someone is forking your code and calling it something else, or selling it.... well, welcome to the GPL. You're allowed to do that. You need to read section 7, specifically:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

    c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that 
    material, or requiring that modified versions of such 
    material be marked in reasonable ways as different from 
    the original version; or

That's an additional term you can place on your code, and NOT part of the default license.

If someone is violating the GPL and the FSF owns the code then contact the FSF. The FSF doesn't care if someone is violating your code's GPL license. It's not their code so the don't have any right to enforce your license.

Forking, calling it something else and selling it is okay by the GPL. Using a different license isn't. A piece of code that's under the GPL must remain under the GPL unless the author (copyright holder that is) decides to change the license. At least that's how I understood it.

So while you can fork it and sell it, you can't sell it under a different license, which is what those guys did.

Perhaps the Software Freedom Law Center (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/) and gpl-violations.org (http://gpl-violations.org/) are the right ones to ask.

As a few commenters to the author's post made clear, it's not obvious what GPL violations are taking place. Renaming it should be fine, as long as the license is intact. It's rude and very bad form (in my opinion), but as far as I understand it's not illegal in any way.

If he is going to use GPL, a licence with almost nil chance enforcement when violated, how naive is he when he so surprise that scummy people try and commercialise his software.

If he cared about his software (which obviously he did) he should have just sold it himself. Honestly, I think he's just upset because of a lost business opportunity. On the flip side, your software is getting forked, used commercially with ??? amount of users, that'll look pretty nice on your resume.

If he is going to use GPL, a licence with almost nil chance enforcement when violated, how naive is he when he so surprise that scummy people try and commercialise his software.

There isn't necessarily anything "scummy" about commercialising F/OSS. I mean, do you think Red Hat are scummy for selling Linux?

I assumed there were actual violations, which would make the perpetrators scummy.

Ah, OK. I thought you were implying that scumminess was a direct result of trying to commercialise F/OSS. My bad.

The GPL has an excellent enforcement history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation#GPL_en...

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Lets be realistic here, enforcement of copyright across nation boundaries is still difficult. Just look at the recent case where someone's game engine was cloned, translated and sold in China.

Aside from some high profile targets, you cannot claim that GPL has an excellent enforcement history. A simple google query "gpl hall of shame" should suffice.

If you were originally trying to point out that all copyright enforcement outside of the West is poor (I doubt it) then you really should have made that clear. In China, the GPL brings no specific problems that rights-holders using other licences don't face. If someone is going to violate the law completely, it won't help if you've made them click through an EULA. I don't think this is really what anyone is talking about. Everyone has copyright problems in China, including Microsoft and Apple.

A web search for "gpl hall of shame" brings up an FFMPEG page so out of date that they took it down and an extremely out of date Busybox page. It also brings up this:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/05/cisco-...

Fact is, the GPL works great and has a great history of being enforceable with plenty of high profile cases.

The Free Software Foundation Europe and gpl-violations.org might provide advice and assistance:

https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/ftf.en.html

http://gpl-violations.org/

Time to be an ass and demand the source code because he has to provide it for three years.

//EDIT: he does not even link to the violations. Where is proof that someone actually violated the license?

It's Python. If you're entitled to the source, you've already got it.

Pulling the code is an overreaction. Prams, toys and babies etc.

I guess I'm confused. What is an "unauthorized fork"? Anyone can fork GPL software at any time, for any reason. That's the whole point, isn't it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com