Possible gpl problem?

Possible gpl problem?

[Gene Heskett]

Greetings everybody;

I ran across a notice tonight that K-Linux is changing its name to KaeilOS.
Nothing wrong with that except they've gone commercial and its no longer 
freely downloadable.  The only apparent method of getting it, even though 
its prominently displayed as being released under the GPL V2 license, is 
to buy the dvd for 299 euros.

Now I'd be the first to say that I'd expect it to come with very good 
initial support for that amount of money, because thats what you would be 
buying.  However, the lack of a freely downloadable version with no 
support certainly seems to be a GPL violation to me.  It should be checked 
out IMO.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Possible gpl problem?

[David Rees]

On 8/27/06, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net> wrote:
> However, the lack of a freely downloadable version with no
> support certainly seems to be a GPL violation to me.  It should be checked
> out IMO.

Gene, this is not quite the right list for this discussion (have a
look at http://gpl-violations.org/) and your understanding of the GPL
is incorrect.

Just because a company doesn't have source freely downloadable on
their website does not mean they are violating the GPL even if they
are selling GPL licensed software. Only people who buy the GPL
licensed software are entitled to a copy of the source of the binaries
they receive.

-Dave

Re: Possible gpl problem?

[Kasper Sandberg]

On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 00:22 -0700, David Rees wrote:
> On 8/27/06, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net> wrote:
> > However, the lack of a freely downloadable version with no
> > support certainly seems to be a GPL violation to me.  It should be checked
> > out IMO.
> 
> Gene, this is not quite the right list for this discussion (have a
> look at http://gpl-violations.org/) and your understanding of the GPL
> is incorrect.
> 
> Just because a company doesn't have source freely downloadable on
> their website does not mean they are violating the GPL even if they
> are selling GPL licensed software. Only people who buy the GPL
> licensed software are entitled to a copy of the source of the binaries
> they receive.
as far as i understand, anyone who receieves a copy of the binary, is
entitled to the source
> 
> -Dave
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: Possible gpl problem?

[Sven-Haegar Koch]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Kasper Sandberg wrote:

> On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 00:22 -0700, David Rees wrote:
>> On 8/27/06, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> However, the lack of a freely downloadable version with no
>>> support certainly seems to be a GPL violation to me.  It should be checked
>>> out IMO.
>>
>> Gene, this is not quite the right list for this discussion (have a
>> look at http://gpl-violations.org/) and your understanding of the GPL
>> is incorrect.
>>
>> Just because a company doesn't have source freely downloadable on
>> their website does not mean they are violating the GPL even if they
>> are selling GPL licensed software. Only people who buy the GPL
>> licensed software are entitled to a copy of the source of the binaries
>> they receive.
> as far as i understand, anyone who receieves a copy of the binary, is
> entitled to the source

Yes, but they have to ask their source of the binary for it, not the 
original creator if he gave the source to his customers together with the 
binaries.

c'ya
sven

-- 

The Internet treats censorship as a routing problem, and routes around it.
(John Gilmore on http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/)

Re: Possible gpl problem?

[David Woodhouse]

On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 00:22 -0700, David Rees wrote:
> Just because a company doesn't have source freely downloadable on
> their website does not mean they are violating the GPL even if they
> are selling GPL licensed software. Only people who buy the GPL
> licensed software are entitled to a copy of the source of the binaries
> they receive.

That's true _only_ if the company ships the source _with_ the binaries
when people buy the product.

There are two (commercial) options:

1. If you _always_ distribute source _with_ the binaries, then you only
have to give source to those who receive binaries. And of course you've
already done so.

2. If you ever distribute binaries _without_ source code, then you're
obliged to make the source code available to _any_ third party on
request; _not_ only those to whom you gave the binaries.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Possible gpl problem?

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 28 August 2006 07:11, David Woodhouse wrote:
>On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 00:22 -0700, David Rees wrote:
>> Just because a company doesn't have source freely downloadable on
>> their website does not mean they are violating the GPL even if they
>> are selling GPL licensed software. Only people who buy the GPL
>> licensed software are entitled to a copy of the source of the binaries
>> they receive.
>
>That's true _only_ if the company ships the source _with_ the binaries
>when people buy the product.
>
>There are two (commercial) options:
>
>1. If you _always_ distribute source _with_ the binaries, then you only
>have to give source to those who receive binaries. And of course you've
>already done so.
>
>2. If you ever distribute binaries _without_ source code, then you're
>obliged to make the source code available to _any_ third party on
>request; _not_ only those to whom you gave the binaries.

This (2) was my opinion also, and when you read the FAQ, it becomes 
apparent that as far as srcs are concerned, you are more of less expected 
to search the net and find the src for a rather lengthy list of binaries 
that are on the dvd.  This doesn't quite seem to fit my understanding that 
*they* should be supplying the src, they are not, or at least thats what I 
have read and interpreted the FAQ as saying.

To Harold W., this thread is re the former "k-linux" distro, which has been 
renamed and is now being sold for 299 euros on their website, with no 
functional download links.

This will be my last post on this since its off-topic for lkml.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

RE: Possible gpl problem?

[David Schwartz]

> 2. If you ever distribute binaries _without_ source code, then you're
> obliged to make the source code available to _any_ third party on
> request; _not_ only those to whom you gave the binaries.

	That's not what the GPL says. The only clauses I think you could be talking
about are:

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

	Note that providing a license does not require providing media. A license
is a right to use, not an ability to use or a copy of the covered work. And:

    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,

	Which, you'll notice, says you must *accompany* the distribution with a
written offer. There is no way this offer could be enforced by someone who
did not possess it or a copy of it. How would you know who to contact, the
amount to pay, and so on?

	So if you neither possess the binary nor a copy of an offer for the source,
you are not entitled to it. At least, that's how I read this.

	DS

RE: Possible gpl problem?

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 06:57 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
>     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,
> 
>         Which, you'll notice, says you must *accompany* the distribution with a
> written offer. There is no way this offer could be enforced by someone who
> did not possess it or a copy of it. How would you know who to contact, the
> amount to pay, and so on?
> 
>         So if you neither possess the binary nor a copy of an offer for the source,
> you are not entitled to it. At least, that's how I read this. 

That interpretation doesn't seem particularly consistent with the third
and final option as described in the next paragraph of the GPL:

    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.)

Unless the party who made the offer of source code is required to extend
that offer to "any third party" (as in fact is explicitly stated in
subsection b), how can subsection c work?

It doesn't say "any third party who is in possession of a copy of the
binary and has a verbatim copy of the original written offer of source".
It just says "any third party".

-- 
dwmw2


-- 
VGER BF report: U 0.5

RE: Possible gpl problem?

[David Schwartz]

> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 06:57 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >     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,

> > Which, you'll notice, says you must *accompany* the
> > distribution with a
> > written offer. There is no way this offer could be enforced by
> > someone who
> > did not possess it or a copy of it. How would you know who to
> > contact, the
> > amount to pay, and so on?

> > So if you neither possess the binary nor a copy of an
> > offer for the source,
> > you are not entitled to it. At least, that's how I read this.

> That interpretation doesn't seem particularly consistent with the third
> and final option as described in the next paragraph of the GPL:

	Hmm? It's perfectly consistent.

>     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.)

	In other words, you must enable the recipient to get the source by passing
your original offer on to them. The recipient, obviously, must be able to
enforce the offer or this makes no sense.

	So the purpose of the "any third party" requirement is to make sure that
someone who receives a copy of the offer from a redistributor can acquire
the source code. It's not so that someone who never received any
distribution at all can acquire the source code.

	This is consistent with the purpose of the GPL as well, which is to make
sure that if you have the binary, you can get the source code. It is not to
ensure that random people can get the source code.

> Unless the party who made the offer of source code is required to extend
> that offer to "any third party" (as in fact is explicitly stated in
> subsection b), how can subsection c work?

	Subsection c works because the person distributing the code passes the
offer on to the recipient so that he is in possession of a copy of the
offer.

> It doesn't say "any third party who is in possession of a copy of the
> binary and has a verbatim copy of the original written offer of source".
> It just says "any third party".

	What would be the point of accompanying it with the information regarding
the offer if that information served no purpose whatsoever? How could you
enforce an offer when you had no knowledge of who was making the offer and
what its terms were?

	DS



-- 
VGER BF report: U 0.499995

RE: Possible gpl problem?

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 22:54 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> 	So the purpose of the "any third party" requirement is to make sure that
> someone who receives a copy of the offer from a redistributor can acquire
> the source code. It's not so that someone who never received any
> distribution at all can acquire the source code.

I see. So your claim is that when it says "any third party" it doesn't
actually mean "any third party".

> > It doesn't say "any third party who is in possession of a copy of the
> > binary and has a verbatim copy of the original written offer of source".
> > It just says "any third party".
> 
> 	What would be the point of accompanying it with the information regarding
> the offer if that information served no purpose whatsoever? How could you
> enforce an offer when you had no knowledge of who was making the offer and
> what its terms were?

That seems like both question and answer to me; I think you're confusing
yourself.

The "information regarding the offer" is precisely that knowledge about
whom to contact to ask for the source. The point in accompanying
redistributed binaries with that information is so that the recipient of
the binaries knows how to obtain the source code.

That works because "any third party" has a right to approach the
original distributor and ask for the sources.

Of course, that third party does need to _know_ that the source is there
for the asking -- that's why the GPL specifies that the information has
to be passed on to subsequent recipients of the binaries. But that
doesn't mean that the original distributor is only required to provide
source to those who've received binaries -- the GPL says "any third
party".

It's entirely possible for a someone to be entitled to something without
actually being _aware_ of the fact. Your argument seems to be based on
the assumption that that is not possible, as well as a creative
misinterpretation of the fairly unambiguous phrase "any third party".

You keep talking about enforcement, strangely -- as if a right cannot
exist without the direct ability to enforce it. Many people seem to
believe that the only people who can _enforce_ the GPL are those who
hold copyright in the original source; whose work was used by the party
who is now refusing to provide their modified sources.

By your logic, if a right cannot exist without the ability to enforce
it, the only people who are entitled to receive source are the original
copyright-holders -- not even the direct recipients of the binaries,
since they are not in a position to _enforce_ the GPL.

That just doesn't make any sense.

-- 
dwmw2


-- 
VGER BF report: U 0.49756

RE: Possible gpl problem?

[David Schwartz]

> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 22:54 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

> > So the purpose of the "any third party" requirement is to
> > make sure that
> > someone who receives a copy of the offer from a redistributor
> > can acquire
> > the source code. It's not so that someone who never received any
> > distribution at all can acquire the source code.

> I see. So your claim is that when it says "any third party" it doesn't
> actually mean "any third party".

No, it means any third party. That is, you cannot refuse to honor the
agreement on the grounds that the person enforcing it is not someone with
whom you have some previous arrangement or agreement. You cannot
discriminate on the basis of who is trying to enforce the agreement.

If I say "any third party may hire my services for $200/hr", that doesn't
mean that I have to give my services away for free just because it says "any
third party". It would be absurd to argue that if I don't give my services
for free, then I'm re-interpreting "any third party" as "any third party
willing to pay for my services".

What is the point of the offer being written? What is the point of
non-commerical distributors being required to provide a copy? Obviously it's
so that those who receive the binary can enforce the offer.

> > > It doesn't say "any third party who is in possession of a copy of the
> > > binary and has a verbatim copy of the original written offer
> > > of source".
> > > It just says "any third party".
> >
> > 	What would be the point of accompanying it with the
> > information regarding
> > the offer if that information served no purpose whatsoever? How
> > could you
> > enforce an offer when you had no knowledge of who was making
> > the offer and
> > what its terms were?

> That seems like both question and answer to me; I think you're confusing
> yourself.

How so?

> The "information regarding the offer" is precisely that knowledge about
> whom to contact to ask for the source. The point in accompanying
> redistributed binaries with that information is so that the recipient of
> the binaries knows how to obtain the source code.

Right.

> That works because "any third party" has a right to approach the
> original distributor and ask for the sources.

Assuming they know who the original distributor is. Assuming they know that
the offer even exists.

> Of course, that third party does need to _know_ that the source is there
> for the asking -- that's why the GPL specifies that the information has
> to be passed on to subsequent recipients of the binaries. But that
> doesn't mean that the original distributor is only required to provide
> source to those who've received binaries -- the GPL says "any third
> party".

You are confusing what I said. I did not say the distributor is only
required to provide source to those who've recieved binaries. The
distributor cannot say "prove you have the binaries or I will not ship you
source". I am saying that this scheme only *guarantees* that those who
receive binaries can get source. Just because an offer exists that is valid
for any third party, it does not follow that any third party will in fact be
capable of taking advantage of the offer (and thus become entitled to the
thing complying with the terms of the offer gets them).

This scheme does not in fact guarantee that any third party can get the
source code. I'm sure there have been many distributions under this scheme
wherein I have no way to get the source code because I do not even know the
software exists, much less who to contact to get my copy.

The mere existence of an offer does not entitle me to the thing offered.
Only compliance with the terms of the offer entitles you to the thing
offered.

> It's entirely possible for a someone to be entitled to something without
> actually being _aware_ of the fact. Your argument seems to be based on
> the assumption that that is not possible, as well as a creative
> misinterpretation of the fairly unambiguous phrase "any third party".

By this argument, I am entitled to a Whopper because I can buy one. But of
course you are not entitled to it. Just because there exists an offer by
which you could get it, it does not follow that you are entitled to it.

I am entitled to the source code if and only if I can and do exercise the
offer. If I cannot or do not exercise the offer, I am not entitled to the
source code. I may be required to pay for the source code.

> You keep talking about enforcement, strangely -- as if a right cannot
> exist without the direct ability to enforce it. Many people seem to
> believe that the only people who can _enforce_ the GPL are those who
> hold copyright in the original source; whose work was used by the party
> who is now refusing to provide their modified sources.

> By your logic, if a right cannot exist without the ability to enforce
> it, the only people who are entitled to receive source are the original
> copyright-holders -- not even the direct recipients of the binaries,
> since they are not in a position to _enforce_ the GPL.

> That just doesn't make any sense.

By "enforce" I just mean exercise, that is, you are capable of complying
with the terms.

By your understanding, creating the written offer and including a copy of it
serves no purpose whatsoever. The mere existence of the offer is sufficient
in your view.

DS



-- 
VGER BF report: U 0.5

RE: Possible gpl problem?

[David Schwartz]

	I just noticed that the FSF agrees with me. The GPL FAQ says:

--begin gpl faq excerpt--

"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled
to take you up on it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code,
the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code
later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received
from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that
people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive
copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that
people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source
code from you.

[...]

Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all
third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely
everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for
them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your
version.

--end gpl faq excerpt--

	DS




-- 
VGER BF report: U 0.49566

Re: Possible gpl problem?

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 28 August 2006 03:22, David Rees wrote:
>On 8/27/06, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net> wrote:
>> However, the lack of a freely downloadable version with no
>> support certainly seems to be a GPL violation to me.  It should be
>> checked out IMO.
>
>Gene, this is not quite the right list for this discussion (have a
>look at http://gpl-violations.org/) and your understanding of the GPL
>is incorrect.
>
>Just because a company doesn't have source freely downloadable on
>their website does not mean they are violating the GPL even if they
>are selling GPL licensed software. Only people who buy the GPL
>licensed software are entitled to a copy of the source of the binaries
>they receive.

I came to that same conclusion after reading their FAQ later.  Sorry for 
the noise.  My interest is in whether or not the RTAI stuff will be 
similarly hidden from public use as I DO use that while running my milling 
machine with EMC2.  That interest was my trigger to at least ask the 
question.

>-Dave

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.