LiS 2.19.0 does not compile
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:22:57 -0700
LiS 2.19.0 does not compile on FC5 with 2.6.17 kernel.
LiS 2.19.0 does not compile on Ubuntu 6.10 with 2.6.15 kernel.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: LiS 2.19.0 does not compile
Steve Schefter
Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:57:26 -0700
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>LiS 2.19.0 does not compile on FC5 with 2.6.17 kernel.
I've only tested with the stock kernels that come with the
various releases (2.6.15 in the case of FC5). Testing with
all the kernel flavours of all distributions is prevented
by my having a real job. All LGPL patches welcome.
>LiS 2.19.0 does not compile on Ubuntu 6.10 with 2.6.15 kernel.
If anybody actually uses LiS with Ubuntu and wishes to submit
a patch, please do.
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schefter phone: +1 705 725 9999 x26
The Software Group Limited fax: +1 705 725 9666
642 Welham Road, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Barrie, Ontario CANADA L4N 9A1 Web: www.wanware.com
Re: LiS 2.19.0 does not compile
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:30:47 -0700
Steve,
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Steve Schefter wrote:
> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > LiS 2.19.0 does not compile on FC5 with 2.6.17 kernel.
>
> I've only tested with the stock kernels that come with the
> various releases (2.6.15 in the case of FC5). Testing with
> all the kernel flavours of all distributions is prevented
> by my having a real job. All LGPL patches welcome.
Try yum. The latest "stock" kernel is 2.6.17.
>
> > LiS 2.19.0 does not compile on Ubuntu 6.10 with 2.6.15 kernel.
>
> If anybody actually uses LiS with Ubuntu and wishes to submit
> a patch, please do.
I see you don't really want to maintain LiS. That't ok. Linux
Fast-STREAMS works so much better anyway.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: LiS 2.19.0 does not compile
ragnar
Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:28:29 -0700
>
> I see you don't really want to maintain LiS. That't ok. Linux
> Fast-STREAMS works so much better anyway.
>
Who does? The Software Group never signed up to provide LiS product or
maintain LiS. We are hosting the mailing list and keeping the source code
controlled in CVS as well as available to the community at large. This is
in keeping with LGPL practices and requirements.
We have our fixed requirements for LiS (one of which is LGPL) and we
ensure that it works for our requirements. We welcome submissions, diffs,
edits from the community at large to support a wider platform base but if
we have no need for it, we certainly won't be developing it ourselves.
We have no vested interest in whether people use LFS or LiS ... whichever
works best for you. From all accounts LFS has many advantages. It is my
choice not to look at it because of the licensing.
If no one uses LiS that's fine too, our obligation is to make the changes
we make available to the public and we are doing so. The mailing list and
easily accessible FTP site with somewhat up to date documentation is just
extra stuff we give back in gratitude for the years of work Dave Grothe
and GCOM put into this.
Naturally if our customer base changes and we need to support Ubuntu and
other variants, we will add the support where needed and continue to share
with the community. In the meantime we suggest those that need it, make
it work and if you feed the changes back to us in diff form we'll
incorporate them. If you elect to simply publish it on your ftp site (the
minimum requirement by GPL/LGPL) we're not going to chase it down.
Cheers,
Ragnar Paulson
Re: LiS 2.19.0 does not compile
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:55:45 -0700
ragnar,
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Who does? The Software Group never signed up to provide LiS product or
> maintain LiS.
I see, rather than contributing back, you are just meeting what you
perceive to be your minimal obligations.
I think that I will offer to put up a more neutral mailing list: one
that is not focused on one's minimal corporate obligations...
> We have no vested interest in whether people use LFS or LiS ... whichever
> works best for you. From all accounts LFS has many advantages. It is my
> choice not to look at it because of the licensing.
You really need to talk to a lawyer. LGPL + GPL => GPL and LiS has many
GPL components and dependencies, making it all GPL.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: LiS 2.19.0 does not compile
Dave Grothe
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:19:45 -0700
At 05:55 PM 8/29/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>You really need to talk to a lawyer. LGPL + GPL => GPL and LiS has many
>GPL components and dependencies, making it all GPL.
Care to name them?
-- Dave
Re: LiS 2.19.0 does not compile
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:04:52 -0700
> Care to name them?
man grep
Re: LiS 2.19.0 does not compile
Dave Grothe
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:11:29 -0700
Not very useful.
-- Dave
At 03:04 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Care to name them?
man grep
Re: LiS 2.19.0 does not compile
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:31:44 -0700
> Not very useful.
You can't remember which GPL'ed files you put in the release?
Time to stop eating out of those aluminum pots!
--brian
Re: LiS 2.19.0 does not compile
Dave Grothe
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:43:08 -0700
I'm getting too old and crabby for this smart-ass stuff. If you have
something useful to say then say it.
Mere aggregation does not trigger the viral properties of the GPL. There
are some separately loadable STREAMS modules such as LDL that are full GPL
and are aggregated with the rest of LiS in the distribution. But they are
NOT LINKED IN with LiS.
If you don't have anything more enlightening that than to say then stop
wasting our time.
-- Dave
At 03:31 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Not very useful.
You can't remember which GPL'ed files you put in the release?
Time to stop eating out of those aluminum pots!
--brian
GPL/LGPL
Steve Schefter
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:53:41 -0700
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>> Not very useful.
>You can't remember which GPL'ed files you put in the release?
>Time to stop eating out of those aluminum pots!
>--brian
When one makes a personal attack in forums such as these, it is
not generally the attacked one who comes out looking diminished.
Lets all be professionals, please.
Clearly there is a difference in interpretations of LGPL and GPL.
Based on Brian's "grep" e-mail, it appears that he believes that
the GPL modules are not "mere aggregations" into the LiS
tarball. Dave and I believe otherwise. We have been down this
road before as have many others in many other forums. This is
not a legal forum and, as far as I know, none of us are lawyers.
Each can consult their own lawyers as needed.
Regards,
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schefter phone: +1 705 725 9999 x26
The Software Group Limited fax: +1 705 725 9666
642 Welham Road, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Barrie, Ontario CANADA L4N 9A1 Web: www.wanware.com
Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:09:51 -0700
Steve,
> Based on Brian's "grep" e-mail, it appears that he believes that
> the GPL modules are not "mere aggregations" into the LiS
> tarball.
Files that compile into the "Library" (whether optionally or not)
cannot be considered mere aggregation.
As I said, you really need to talk to a Lawyer.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: GPL/LGPL
Dave Grothe
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:14:06 -0700
Are you going to start signing your e-mails:
Brian SCO-is-my-middle-name Bidulock
:)
-- Dave
At 04:09 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
Steve,
> Based on Brian's "grep" e-mail, it appears that he believes that
> the GPL modules are not "mere aggregations" into the LiS
> tarball.
Files that compile into the "Library" (whether optionally or not)
cannot be considered mere aggregation.
As I said, you really need to talk to a Lawyer.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:19:49 -0700
Dave,
> Are you going to start signing your e-mails:
> Brian SCO-is-my-middle-name Bidulock
??? You lost me.
I have no affiliation to SCO.
However, I heard rumor (GrokLaw) LiS was derived from SCO (Caldera) sources.
--brian
Re: GPL/LGPL
Dave Grothe
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:24:15 -0700
You are making claims along the same lines as SCO:
Outrageous blanket claims concerning licensing. No specifics when asked.
SCO's case was recently thrown out of court. I suggest that you give up on
yours as well.
-- Dave
At 04:19 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
Dave,
> Are you going to start signing your e-mails:
> Brian SCO-is-my-middle-name Bidulock
??? You lost me.
I have no affiliation to SCO.
However, I heard rumor (GrokLaw) LiS was derived from SCO (Caldera) sources.
--brian
Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:33:24 -0700
Dave,
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Dave Grothe wrote:
>
> You are making claims along the same lines as SCO:
> Outrageous blanket claims concerning licensing. No specifics when
> asked.
> SCO's case was recently thrown out of court. I suggest that you give
> up on yours as well.
Well, then I suggest you remove and stop distributing the 27 files with
my copyright at the top in violation of the licensing terms under which
I provided them to you.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: GPL/LGPL
Dave Grothe
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:44:39 -0700
In my version, I count 11 ".h" files that have your name in the copyright
legend, and no ".c" files. They are:
./include/sys/tpi.h
./include/sys/xti.h
./include/sys/xti_inet.h
./include/sys/xti_xti.h
./include/sys/xti_ip.h
./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
./include/sys/xti_udp.h
./include/xti/config.h
./include/xti/xti_local.h
./include/xti.h
./include/xti_inet.h
Those files are aggregated along with LiS, which allowed by the GPL. NO LiS
source file includes any of these files.
I rather suspect that Steve's distribution has the same properties. But if
you can count 27 files then you should tell him/us which files they are.
-- Dave
At 04:33 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
Dave,
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Dave Grothe wrote:
>
> You are making claims along the same lines as SCO:
> Outrageous blanket claims concerning licensing. No specifics when
> asked.
> SCO's case was recently thrown out of court. I suggest that you give
> up on yours as well.
Well, then I suggest you remove and stop distributing the 27 files with
my copyright at the top in violation of the licensing terms under which
I provided them to you.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:48:12 -0700
Dave,
./include/tihdr.h
./include/timod.h
./include/sys/tihdr.h
./include/sys/timod.h
./include/sys/tpi.h
./include/sys/xti.h
./include/sys/xti_inet.h
./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
./include/sys/xti_xti.h
./include/sys/xti_ip.h
./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
./include/sys/xti_udp.h
./include/xti/config.h
./include/xti/tihdr.h
./include/xti/timod.h
./include/xti/xti_atm.h
./include/xti/xti.h
./include/xti/xti_inet.h
./include/xti/xti_ip.h
./include/xti/xti_local.h
./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
./include/xti/xti_osi.h
./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
./include/xti/xti_udp.h
./include/xti.h
./include/xti_inet.h
Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
remove them from your website.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: GPL/LGPL
Dave Grothe
Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:21:13 -0700
Sorry, Charlie.
From GNU GPL license version 2:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License.
and
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
License. However,
parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
So you have no right to revoke the terms and conditions of the GPL. And my
mere aggregation of these files is in full compliance. Steve and others can
speak for themselves.
-- Dave
At 04:48 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
Dave,
./include/tihdr.h
./include/timod.h
./include/sys/tihdr.h
./include/sys/timod.h
./include/sys/tpi.h
./include/sys/xti.h
./include/sys/xti_inet.h
./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
./include/sys/xti_xti.h
./include/sys/xti_ip.h
./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
./include/sys/xti_udp.h
./include/xti/config.h
./include/xti/tihdr.h
./include/xti/timod.h
./include/xti/xti_atm.h
./include/xti/xti.h
./include/xti/xti_inet.h
./include/xti/xti_ip.h
./include/xti/xti_local.h
./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
./include/xti/xti_osi.h
./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
./include/xti/xti_udp.h
./include/xti.h
./include/xti_inet.h
Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
remove them from your website.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:53:12 -0700
Dave,
Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/
--brian
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Dave Grothe wrote:
>
> Sorry, Charlie.
> From GNU GPL license version 2:
>
> In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
> Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
> volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
> work under the scope of this License.
>
> and
>
> You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
> void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
> License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
> you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
> long as such parties remain in full compliance.
>
> So you have no right to revoke the terms and conditions of the GPL.
> And my mere aggregation of these files is in full compliance. Steve
> and others can speak for themselves.
> -- Dave
> At 04:48 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>
> Dave,
> ./include/tihdr.h
> ./include/timod.h
> ./include/sys/tihdr.h
> ./include/sys/timod.h
> ./include/sys/tpi.h
> ./include/sys/xti.h
> ./include/sys/xti_inet.h
> ./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
> ./include/sys/xti_xti.h
> ./include/sys/xti_ip.h
> ./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
> ./include/sys/xti_udp.h
> ./include/xti/config.h
> ./include/xti/tihdr.h
> ./include/xti/timod.h
> ./include/xti/xti_atm.h
> ./include/xti/xti.h
> ./include/xti/xti_inet.h
> ./include/xti/xti_ip.h
> ./include/xti/xti_local.h
> ./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
> ./include/xti/xti_osi.h
> ./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
> ./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
> ./include/xti/xti_udp.h
> ./include/xti.h
> ./include/xti_inet.h
> Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
> remove them from your website.
> --brian
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the
> ¦
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in
> ¦
> [1]http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to
> himself. ¦
> ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the
> ¦
> ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
> ¦
>
> References
>
> 1. http://www.openss7.org/
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: GPL/LGPL and the TLI interface
Steve Schefter
Thu, 31 Aug 2006 06:18:26 -0700
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>>Based on Brian's "grep" e-mail, it appears that he believes that
>>the GPL modules are not "mere aggregations" into the LiS
>>tarball.
>Files that compile into the "Library" (whether optionally or not)
>cannot be considered mere aggregation.
There are two drivers which use any of the 27 header files listed
in another e-mail. These are timod and tirdwr, written by Ole
Hsugaard. As I see it, they utilize LiS to provide a TLI
interface rather than being a part of LiS itself. As the
timod documentation states, "there is no TLI Provider code
within LiS". The fact that LiS compiles and runs without
these two drivers further indicates that to me.
But I am interested to hear if anyone in the LiS community has
a strong preference whether the TLI and LDL (provides a DLPI
interface) GPL modules should be included within future releases
of LiS. We have never used them within our products so removing
them would cause us no pain. But I would tend to leave them in
as a convenience to others who may.
In the mean time, Brian, if you believe that I should make the
above decision based on legal rather than LiS user wishes, have
your lawyer give me a call and convince me that our legal advice
is incorrect. Otherwise we will just have to agree to disagree.
Regards,
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schefter phone: +1 705 725 9999 x26
The Software Group Limited fax: +1 705 725 9666
642 Welham Road, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Barrie, Ontario CANADA L4N 9A1 Web: www.wanware.com
Re: GPL/LGPL and the TLI interface
Dave Grothe
Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:32:55 -0700
At 08:18 AM 8/31/2006, Steve Schefter wrote:
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
Based on Brian's "grep" e-mail, it appears that he believes that
the GPL modules are not "mere aggregations" into the LiS
tarball.
Files that compile into the "Library" (whether optionally or not)
cannot be considered mere aggregation.
There are two drivers which use any of the 27 header files listed
in another e-mail. These are timod and tirdwr, written by Ole
Hsugaard. As I see it, they utilize LiS to provide a TLI
interface rather than being a part of LiS itself. As the
timod documentation states, "there is no TLI Provider code
within LiS". The fact that LiS compiles and runs without
these two drivers further indicates that to me.
Also please note that timod and tirdwr are separately compiled loadable
modules and are not linked in with the streams.o STREAMS executive. Ditto
for LDL.
They are in full compliance with the GPL and Brian has no right to revoke
the license.
-- Dave
Re: GPL/LGPL
Steve Schefter
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:54:29 -0700
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Anyone else that has redistributed
>LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
>is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
>files was void and terminated.
Incorrect. We include the GPL and LGPL licenses on the CD with
our product. As GPL also applies to some of our Perl scripts, this
is a more appropriate place to put it than the LiS tarball.
Regards,
Steve
Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:07:27 -0700
Steve,
I downloaded LiS-2.19.0.tgz from your website and do not have a copy of
the GPL. Therefore it is a GPL violation and your rights to distribtute
these files under the GPL has terminated.
--brian
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006, Steve Schefter wrote:
> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > Anyone else that has redistributed
> > LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
> > is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
> > files was void and terminated.
>
> Incorrect. We include the GPL and LGPL licenses on the CD with
> our product. As GPL also applies to some of our Perl scripts, this
> is a more appropriate place to put it than the LiS tarball.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: GPL/LGPL
Steve Schefter
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:38:31 -0700
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>I downloaded LiS-2.19.0.tgz from your website and do not have a copy of
>the GPL. Therefore it is a GPL violation and your rights to distribtute
>these files under the GPL has terminated.
It was your prerogative not to download the license. It's at the
ftp root and (now) within the LiS directory.
Steve
[Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:14:05 -0700
Steve,
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006, Steve Schefter wrote:
> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > I downloaded LiS-2.19.0.tgz from your website and do not have a copy of
> > the GPL. Therefore it is a GPL violation and your rights to distribtute
> > these files under the GPL has terminated.
>
> It was your prerogative not to download the license. It's at the
> ftp root and (now) within the LiS directory.
Too late. Your license to distribute the files terminated when you
attempted to distribute them without a copy of the license. If you
wish to now distribute them with a copy of the license, you will need
the permission of the copyright holder.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
[Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Steve Schefter
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:02:42 -0700
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>>Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>>>I downloaded LiS-2.19.0.tgz from your website and do not have a copy of
>>>the GPL. Therefore it is a GPL violation and your rights to distribtute
>>>these files under the GPL has terminated.
>>It was your prerogative not to download the license. It's at the
>>ftp root and (now) within the LiS directory.
>Too late. Your license to distribute the files terminated when you
>attempted to distribute them without a copy of the license. If you
>wish to now distribute them with a copy of the license, you will need
>the permission of the copyright holder.
No point in us getting into a debate about what does and does not
constitute "along with the program" as worded in the license.
Neither of us are lawyers.
I believe that having it on our ftpsite, at the root, is suitable
for the various GPL components you will find beneath it and we have
therefore not violated the licence in the past or now. You appear
to believe multiple copies within the ftpsite are required. We will
have to agree to disagree. If you wish to convince me otherwise,
have your lawyer give me a call.
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schefter phone: +1 705 725 9999 x26
The Software Group Limited fax: +1 705 725 9666
642 Welham Road, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Barrie, Ontario CANADA L4N 9A1 Web: www.wanware.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
[Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Dave Grothe
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:57:38 -0700
Took you awhile to come up with that one, didn't it?
First, you are the original violator of the GPL since you conveyed these
files to me and did not accompany them with a copy of the GPL, or request
that I add a copy of the GPL to the LiS distribution. So it would be fair
to argue that you have waived your rights to this requirement.
Second, this "violation" is easily remedied by simply adding a copy of the
full GPL in a file included with the LiS distribution.
Third, there is a clause in the license notice in the files themselves that
render this requirement suspect.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass
Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
In other words, you make provision in your notice that the recipient may not
have received a copy of the license and what to do about it if he/she did
not. (This is standard GNU recommend language.)
All that notwithstanding I am perfectly happy to remove OpenSS7 code from
the LiS distribution. There is nothing of use to me within LiS that uses
any of it anyway.
-- Dave
At 12:50 PM 9/7/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
Dave,
Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/
--brian
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Dave Grothe wrote:
>
> Sorry, Charlie.
> From GNU GPL license version 2:
>
> In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
> Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
> volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
> work under the scope of this License.
>
> and
>
> You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
> void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
> License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
> you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
> long as such parties remain in full compliance.
>
> So you have no right to revoke the terms and conditions of the GPL.
> And my mere aggregation of these files is in full compliance. Steve
> and others can speak for themselves.
> -- Dave
> At 04:48 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>
> Dave,
> ./include/tihdr.h
> ./include/timod.h
> ./include/sys/tihdr.h
> ./include/sys/timod.h
> ./include/sys/tpi.h
> ./include/sys/xti.h
> ./include/sys/xti_inet.h
> ./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
> ./include/sys/xti_xti.h
> ./include/sys/xti_ip.h
> ./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
> ./include/sys/xti_udp.h
> ./include/xti/config.h
> ./include/xti/tihdr.h
> ./include/xti/timod.h
> ./include/xti/xti_atm.h
> ./include/xti/xti.h
> ./include/xti/xti_inet.h
> ./include/xti/xti_ip.h
> ./include/xti/xti_local.h
> ./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
> ./include/xti/xti_osi.h
> ./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
> ./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
> ./include/xti/xti_udp.h
> ./include/xti.h
> ./include/xti_inet.h
> Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
> remove them from your website.
> --brian
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the
> ¦
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in
> ¦
> [1]http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to
> himself. ¦
> ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the
> ¦
> ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
> ¦
>
> References
>
> 1. http://www.openss7.org/
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
[Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:40:07 -0700
Dave,
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006, Dave Grothe wrote:
>
> Took you awhile to come up with that one, didn't it?
(I was, and am still, on vacation.)
> First, you are the original violator of the GPL since you conveyed
> these files to me and did not accompany them with a copy of the GPL,
> or request that I add a copy of the GPL to the LiS distribution. So
> it would be fair to argue that you have waived your rights to this
> requirement.
I didn't waive anything. It is your obligation under the GPL (Section 1) to
include a copy of the license, regardless of whether you were given one or
not.
> Second, this "violation" is easily remedied by simply adding a copy of
> the full GPL in a file included with the LiS distribution.
Except that your rights to distribute these files under the license has
already terminated. You will need the permission of the copyright holder if
you want them reinstated.
> Third, there is a clause in the license notice in the files themselves
> that render this requirement suspect.
>
> You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> along with
> this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
> 675 Mass
> Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
>
> In other words, you make provision in your notice that the recipient
> may not have received a copy of the license and what to do about it if
> he/she did not. (This is standard GNU recommend language.)
Yes, someone might have violated the license by not including one as you have.
> All that notwithstanding I am perfectly happy to remove OpenSS7 code
> from the LiS distribution. There is nothing of use to me within LiS
> that uses any of it anyway.
> -- Dave
Yes, please remove the files from your website (including the strinet package
on your site in which they are contained). (But, I think that I already asked
you to do this.)
--brian
> > ./include/tihdr.h
> > ./include/timod.h
> > ./include/sys/tihdr.h
> > ./include/sys/timod.h
> > ./include/sys/tpi.h
> > ./include/sys/xti.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_inet.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_xti.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_ip.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_udp.h
> > ./include/xti/config.h
> > ./include/xti/tihdr.h
> > ./include/xti/timod.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_atm.h
> > ./include/xti/xti.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_inet.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_ip.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_local.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_osi.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_udp.h
> > ./include/xti.h
> > ./include/xti_inet.h
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: GPL/LGPL
Dave Grothe
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:51:42 -0700
At 02:04 PM 9/7/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> All that notwithstanding I am perfectly happy to remove OpenSS7 code
> from the LiS distribution. There is nothing of use to me within LiS
> that uses any of it anyway.
> -- Dave
Yes, please remove the files from your website (including the strinet package
on your site in which they are contained). (But, I think that I already asked
you to do this.)
Will do. But I have to ask you this about strinet. I got that from you.
So are you distributing GPL code without a copy of the GPL as a sort of time
bomb? That is, if strinet lacks a copy of the GPL it is because you failed
to distribute it that way in the first place. So why should that affect my,
or anyone's, rights to redistribute that package?
-- Dave
--brian
> > ./include/tihdr.h
> > ./include/timod.h
> > ./include/sys/tihdr.h
> > ./include/sys/timod.h
> > ./include/sys/tpi.h
> > ./include/sys/xti.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_inet.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_xti.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_ip.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
> > ./include/sys/xti_udp.h
> > ./include/xti/config.h
> > ./include/xti/tihdr.h
> > ./include/xti/timod.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_atm.h
> > ./include/xti/xti.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_inet.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_ip.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_local.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_osi.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
> > ./include/xti/xti_udp.h
> > ./include/xti.h
> > ./include/xti_inet.h
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Ole Husgaard
Sat, 02 Dec 2006 04:38:05 -0800
Hi,
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
>aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
>you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
>Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
>distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
>the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
>LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
>is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
>files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
>punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
>information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/
I am the owner of the copyrights in the contributions I have done to
LiS. Some of these contributions are released under the GPL, and some
are released under the LGPL.
I have never given you permission to relicense or redistribute these
works under any other license terms than the GPL respective the LGPL.
Therefore, I would like you to explain your remark above about dual-
licensing this code. I really hope I am misunderstanding something.
>> At 04:48 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>> Dave,
[snip]
>> ./include/sys/tihdr.h
>> ./include/sys/timod.h
[snip]
>> Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
>> remove them from your website.
I wrote the two files not snipped from the list above last millenium,
and contributed them to LiS under the LGPL license. Please explain your
right to prohibit others from redistributing them under the LGPL license.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Sat, 02 Dec 2006 08:30:11 -0800
Ole,
Please see responses to your comments inline...
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006, Ole Husgaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
> > aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
> > you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
> > Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
> > distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
> > the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
> > LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
> > is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
> > files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
> > punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
> > information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/
>
> I am the owner of the copyrights in the contributions I have done to
> LiS. Some of these contributions are released under the GPL, and some
> are released under the LGPL.
>
> I have never given you permission to relicense or redistribute these
> works under any other license terms than the GPL respective the LGPL.
>
> Therefore, I would like you to explain your remark above about dual-
> licensing this code. I really hope I am misunderstanding something.
I was referring to code that I have authored, released under GPL, and
that was included in the LiS distribution. Not your code.
Take a look at http://www.gpl-violations.org/ if you are interested to
see some of the ramifications of a dual-license model on GPL violations.
>
> >> At 04:48 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave,
> [snip]
> >> ./include/sys/tihdr.h
> >> ./include/sys/timod.h
> [snip]
> >> Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
> >> remove them from your website.
>
> I wrote the two files not snipped from the list above last millenium,
> and contributed them to LiS under the LGPL license. Please explain your
> right to prohibit others from redistributing them under the LGPL license.
You should look at the files. The files you wrote were replaced by
files of the same name written by me.
Yes, LiS originally contained some of the files from your (ancient) xti
package. That package didn't work well, was not thread safe, the timod
crashed kernels and was not to spec. So I rewrote the whole thing from
scratch, including those two replacement header files. Parts of it was
released under LGPL (the libxnet XTI library) and parts under GPL (the
timod and tirdwr modules and the inet driver). The problem here is that
my GPL'ed parts were (are) distributed (instead of your files) in the
package without including a copy of the (GPL) license, constituting a
basic GPL violation.
Others were going further to claim that these LiS distributions were
all-LGPL, which was incorrect at best. Not wanting to speak for you (as
there are some GPL components of yours in the distribution), I was only
speaking to my GPL components in the distribution. Your welcome to
complain about yours as well: you have several GPL components in the LiS
distributions that are distributed in violation of the GPL too (the
distribution does not contain a copy of the GPL license).
Dave removed his and that was that. However, there are several other
distributions and redistributions of LiS (from Intel/Dialogic,
Hewlett-Packard, Wanware, IBM and others) that are likely equally in
violation.
But it might be moot: Linux Fast-STREAMS is far superior to LiS in
conformance, performance, production stability, and production kernel
support. LiS pales so much by comparison, it can only be considered
deprecated.
If anyone distributing LiS is concerned, OpenSS7 will offer blanket
licence to redistribute unmodified these files to which it has rights
in exchange for a meager sponsorship of the OpenSS7 open source project.
You'll get the latest and greatest Linux Fast-STREAMS too.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Ole Husgaard
Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:01:17 -0800
Hi Brian,
As long as you have all the copyrights (or have cleared them with the
copyright holders), you are of course allowed to distribute the code
under any license you like. So if these files are written by you, I see
no problems at all.
I'm sorry if I might have sounded a bit harsh, but for a moment I was
worrying if some of the code I had written was being "dual-licensed"
without my permission. That would have made me really angry.
As for your "license termination" against Dave: This is not that easy
with the GPL and LGPL license, as you would have known if you had asked
a copyright lawyer who know these licenses. It is, however, quite easy
to force somebody to adhere to the terms of the GPL or LGPL under the
copyright law of almost all countries in the world.
Your requirement that the relevant license texts are distributed with
your code is IMHO fair and reasonable.
Dave, instead of completely stopping to distribute LiS, as I can see
you have done, please add the texts of the LGPL and GPL to the root of
the LiS distribution. If you do this, nothing is stopping you from
adding files from other projects released under the LGPL or GPL (with
due credit, of course). If in doubt, please send me a private mail and
I'll explain the legal implications.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>Ole,
>Please see responses to your comments inline...
>On Sat, 02 Dec 2006, Ole Husgaard wrote:
>>Hi,
>>Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>>>Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
>>>aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
>>>you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
>>>Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
>>>distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
>>>the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
>>>LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
>>>is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
>>>files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
>>>punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
>>>information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/
>>I am the owner of the copyrights in the contributions I have done to
>>LiS. Some of these contributions are released under the GPL, and some
>are released under the LGPL.
>>I have never given you permission to relicense or redistribute these
>>works under any other license terms than the GPL respective the LGPL.
>>Therefore, I would like you to explain your remark above about dual-
>>licensing this code. I really hope I am misunderstanding something.
>I was referring to code that I have authored, released under GPL, and
that was included in the LiS distribution. Not your code.
>Take a look at http://www.gpl-violations.org/ if you are interested to
>see some of the ramifications of a dual-license model on GPL violations.
>>> At 04:48 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>>> Dave,
>>[snip]
>>> ./include/sys/tihdr.h
>>> ./include/sys/timod.h
>>[snip]
>>> Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
>>> remove them from your website.
>>I wrote the two files not snipped from the list above last millenium,
>>and contributed them to LiS under the LGPL license. Please explain your
>>right to prohibit others from redistributing them under the LGPL license.
>You should look at the files. The files you wrote were replaced by
>files of the same name written by me.
>Yes, LiS originally contained some of the files from your (ancient) xti
>package. That package didn't work well, was not thread safe, the timod
>crashed kernels and was not to spec. So I rewrote the whole thing from
>scratch, including those two replacement header files. Parts of it was
>released under LGPL (the libxnet XTI library) and parts under GPL (the
>timod and tirdwr modules and the inet driver). The problem here is that
>my GPL'ed parts were (are) distributed (instead of your files) in the
>package without including a copy of the (GPL) license, constituting a
>basic GPL violation.
>Others were going further to claim that these LiS distributions were
>all-LGPL, which was incorrect at best. Not wanting to speak for you (as
>there are some GPL components of yours in the distribution), I was only
>speaking to my GPL components in the distribution. Your welcome to
>complain about yours as well: you have several GPL components in the LiS
>distributions that are distributed in violation of the GPL too (the
>distribution does not contain a copy of the GPL license).
>Dave removed his and that was that. However, there are several other
>distributions and redistributions of LiS (from Intel/Dialogic,
>Hewlett-Packard, Wanware, IBM and others) that are likely equally in
>violation.
>But it might be moot: Linux Fast-STREAMS is far superior to LiS in
>conformance, performance, production stability, and production kernel
>support. LiS pales so much by comparison, it can only be considered
>deprecated.
>If anyone distributing LiS is concerned, OpenSS7 will offer blanket
>licence to redistribute unmodified these files to which it has rights
>in exchange for a meager sponsorship of the OpenSS7 open source project.
>You'll get the latest and greatest Linux Fast-STREAMS too.
>--brian
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:59:15 -0800
Ole,
Please see comments inline below...
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006, Ole Husgaard wrote:
>
> As for your "license termination" against Dave: This is not that easy
> with the GPL and LGPL license, as you would have known if you had asked
> a copyright lawyer who know these licenses. It is, however, quite easy
> to force somebody to adhere to the terms of the GPL or LGPL under the
> copyright law of almost all countries in the world.
Are you a lawyer? I'm not, but this passage reads pretty clear to me:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
>
> Your requirement that the relevant license texts are distributed with
> your code is IMHO fair and reasonable.
Not my requirement:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.
> If in doubt, please send me a private mail and I'll explain the legal
> implications.
Again, are you a lawyer? (You seem to be offering legal advise.)
I am not a lawyer, but it strikes me as a bad idea to contemplate
distributing copies of something without the copyright holder's
permission, or, worse, against the copyright holder's wishes.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
Phn: +1 780 490 1141 ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
Fax: +1 780 490 1241 ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Steve Schefter
Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:22:15 -0800
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006, Ole Husgaard wrote:
>>As for your "license termination" against Dave: This is not that easy
>>with the GPL and LGPL license, as you would have known if you had asked
>>a copyright lawyer who know these licenses. It is, however, quite easy
>>to force somebody to adhere to the terms of the GPL or LGPL under the
>>copyright law of almost all countries in the world.
>Are you a lawyer? I'm not, but this passage reads pretty clear to me:
> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
> void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
The misunderstanding is that the "terminate" in the above quote
isn't permanent and isn't a result of an expression of an author's
wishes (such as your e-mail notification of termination). For
example, in the Fortinet case, the court imposed an injunction
"banning them from further distribution of their products until
they are in compliance with the GNU GPL conditions". Fortinet
today distributes products using GPL code. The difference is
that they started including a copy of the licence and making
source available.
Regards,
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schefter phone: +1 705 725 9999 x26
The Software Group Limited fax: +1 705 725 9666
642 Welham Road, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Barrie, Ontario CANADA L4N 9A1 Web: www.wanware.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:29:03 -0800
Steve,
IANAL, but in that case, it appears the plantiff got precisely
what they asked of the German court.
Running under a dual-licensed model, I could ask for punitive
damages from lost royalties as well. (Also described at
http://www.gpl-violations.org/ -- the applicant in the Fortinet
action.)
Perhaps we will get a chance yet to test your legal theories
in Ontario court.
--brian
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006, Steve Schefter wrote:
>
> For example, in the Fortinet case, the court imposed an injunction
> "banning them from further distribution of their products until
> they are in compliance with the GNU GPL conditions". Fortinet
> today distributes products using GPL code. The difference is
> that they started including a copy of the licence and making
> source available.
>
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Ole Husgaard
Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:04:18 -0800
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>IANAL, but in that case, it appears the plantiff got precisely
>what they asked of the German court.
To answer your question: I am not a lawyer, but I know quite a
bit about copyright law.
>Running under a dual-licensed model, I could ask for punitive
>damages from lost royalties as well. (Also described at
>http://www.gpl-violations.org/ -- the applicant in the Fortinet
>action.)
In most countries with copyright laws based on the continental
copyright tradition, the author may ask an infringer for financial
compensation even if the author had no monetary loss.
US copyright law is not based on the continental tradition, and
I am not sure if statutory damages apply if the copyright owner
had no monetary loss. But even if the copyright holder had no
monetary loss, he is entitled to the profits the infringer had
due to the infringement.
So a dual-licensed model is not a requirement for being awarded
damages. Those of us who write and distribute software under the
GPL/LGPL only also have ample opportunities. The reason we almost
never see GPL/LGPL infringement cases where damages or compensation
is awarded is that it is easier to stop the infringement when the
case isn't complicated by the question of damages.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Wed, 06 Dec 2006 04:02:31 -0800
Ole,
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Ole Husgaard wrote:
> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > IANAL, but in that case, it appears the plantiff got precisely
> > what they asked of the German court.
>
> To answer your question: I am not a lawyer, but I know quite a
> bit about copyright law.
>
> > Running under a dual-licensed model, I could ask for punitive
> > damages from lost royalties as well. (Also described at
> > http://www.gpl-violations.org/ -- the applicant in the Fortinet
> > action.)
>
> In most countries with copyright laws based on the continental
> copyright tradition, the author may ask an infringer for financial
> compensation even if the author had no monetary loss.
>
> US copyright law is not based on the continental tradition, and
> I am not sure if statutory damages apply if the copyright owner
> had no monetary loss. But even if the copyright holder had no
> monetary loss, he is entitled to the profits the infringer had
> due to the infringement.
I believe that in the US, if the software was registered with
the US copyright office (really just one page) before the
infringement, the holder is entitled to $100,000.00 USD without
showing punitive damages. Other than that, each side bears its
own legal costs (in most states).
In Canada, the applicant's legal costs to bring the action are
also considered damages and are often awarded by the court.
>
> So a dual-licensed model is not a requirement for being awarded
> damages. Those of us who write and distribute software under the
> GPL/LGPL only also have ample opportunities. The reason we almost
> never see GPL/LGPL infringement cases where damages or compensation
> is awarded is that it is easier to stop the infringement when the
> case isn't complicated by the question of damages.
I agree, it does not appear to be a requirement. In almost all
case shown at gpl-violations.org, although the application only
sought injunction, the violators always seem to have also made a
"contribution" to the authors or project.
So how do you feel about _your_ GPL'ed code (ldl) being
distributed with LiS with not even so much as a copy of the GPL
license?
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Ole Husgaard
Wed, 06 Dec 2006 05:40:07 -0800
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Ole Husgaard wrote:
>>Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>>>Running under a dual-licensed model, I could ask for punitive
>>>damages from lost royalties as well. (Also described at
>>>http://www.gpl-violations.org/ -- the applicant in the Fortinet
>>>action.)
>>In most countries with copyright laws based on the continental
>>copyright tradition, the author may ask an infringer for financial
>>compensation even if the author had no monetary loss.
>>US copyright law is not based on the continental tradition, and
>>I am not sure if statutory damages apply if the copyright owner
>>had no monetary loss. But even if the copyright holder had no
>>monetary loss, he is entitled to the profits the infringer had
>>due to the infringement.
>I believe that in the US, if the software was registered with
>the US copyright office (really just one page) before the
>infringement, the holder is entitled to $100,000.00 USD without
>showing punitive damages. Other than that, each side bears its
>own legal costs (in most states).
For quite some time there has been no requirement to register a
work with the US Copyright Office. Technically such a requirement
is a violation of the Berne Convention. Registration is, however,
useful as proof of ownership if ownership is disputed.
The amount you talk about here has been raised to US$150K, and
applies to willful infringement only. But this is a maximum, and
the court will only award the amount it considers just.
>So how do you feel about _your_ GPL'ed code (ldl) being
>distributed with LiS with not even so much as a copy of the GPL
>license?
I think it is a minor and unimportant issue. In all the GPL'ed
code I have released the copyright header at the top of each file
states that the code is under the GPL, and tells you where to
obtain the full text of the GPL.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:26:06 -0800
Ole,
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Ole Husgaard wrote:
>
> > So how do you feel about _your_ GPL'ed code (ldl) being
> > distributed with LiS with not even so much as a copy of the GPL
> > license?
>
> I think it is a minor and unimportant issue. In all the GPL'ed
> code I have released the copyright header at the top of each file
> states that the code is under the GPL, and tells you where to
> obtain the full text of the GPL.
That is where we differ then. I feel that it is a fundamental
term and condition of the license that a copy of the license be
included.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Steve Schefter
Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:02:07 -0800
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>IANAL, but in that case, it appears the plantiff got precisely
>what they asked of the German court.
We seem to be saying the same thing:
"Fortinet has agreed to provide the source code of the Linux kernel
and other GPL-licensed components to any interested party. The code
is available upon request, for the cost of distribution, from the
Fortinet Web site. The company has also agreed to modify its
licensing agreement to include the GPL licensing terms with all
Fortinet shipments. The settlement agreement also states that no
Fortinet partners are subject to legal action."
> Perhaps we will get a chance yet to test your legal theories
> in Ontario court.
My note was in response Ole's thoughts on Dave's ability to put
LiS back on his website if he should choose, even if he hadn't
previously included a copy of the GPL Licence. Nothing to do
with Ontario. Anything to do with Ontario has been hashed out
earlier in the thread.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
Re: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Brian F. G. Bidulock
Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:03:06 -0800
Steve,
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Steve Schefter wrote:
> My note was in response Ole's thoughts on Dave's ability to put
Then perhaps you should have responded to Ole's note instead of
mine.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
[Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Fco. J. Ballesteros
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:32:08 -0700
Come on, bidulock.
Why don't you let people work?
I prefer to remain silent on this list, since I'm not doing anything with LiS
anymore.
Don't you think you are going too far?
Dave did just a great work with LiS.
You are converting this into lawyer madness.
Go write some code.
Nemo
: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:13:19 -0500
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] lis@wanware.com
linux-streams@openss7.org
: Subject: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
:
:
: Took you awhile to come up with that one, didn't it?
:
: First, you are the original violator of the GPL
: since you conveyed these files to me and did not
: accompany them with a copy of the GPL, or request
: that I add a copy of the GPL to the LiS
: distribution. So it would be fair to argue that
: you have waived your rights to this requirement.
:
: Second, this "violation" is easily remedied by
: simply adding a copy of the full GPL in a file
: included with the LiS distribution.
:
: Third, there is a clause in the license notice in
: the files themselves that render this requirement suspect.
:
: > You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
with
: > this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675
Mass
: > Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
:
: In other words, you make provision in your notice
: that the recipient may not have received a copy
: of the license and what to do about it if he/she
: did not. (This is standard GNU recommend language.)
:
: All that notwithstanding I am perfectly happy to
: remove OpenSS7 code from the LiS
: distribution. There is nothing of use to me
: within LiS that uses any of it anyway.
:
: -- Dave
:
: At 12:50 PM 9/7/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
: >Dave,
: >
: >Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
: >aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
: >you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
: >Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
: >distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
: >the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
: >LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
: >is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
: >files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
: >punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
: >information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/
: >
: >--brian
: >
: >On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Dave Grothe wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > Sorry, Charlie.
: > > From GNU GPL license version 2:
: > >
: > > In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
: > > Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
: > > volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
: > > work under the scope of this License.
: > >
: > > and
: > >
: > > You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
: > > except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
: > > otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
: > > void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
: > > License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
: > > you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
: > > long as such parties remain in full compliance.
: > >
: > > So you have no right to revoke the terms and conditions of the GPL.
: > > And my mere aggregation of these files is in full compliance. Steve
: > > and others can speak for themselves.
: > > -- Dave
: > > At 04:48 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
: > >
: > > Dave,
: > > ./include/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/timod.h
: > > ./include/sys/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/sys/timod.h
: > > ./include/sys/tpi.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_inet.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_xti.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_ip.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_udp.h
: > > ./include/xti/config.h
: > > ./include/xti/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/xti/timod.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_atm.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_inet.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_ip.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_local.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_osi.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_udp.h
: > > ./include/xti.h
: > > ./include/xti_inet.h
: > > Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
: > > remove them from your website.
: > > --brian
: > > --
: > > Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the
: > > ¦
: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in
: > > ¦
: > > [1]http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to
: > > himself. ¦
: > > ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the
: > > ¦
: > > ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
: > > ¦
: > >
: > > References
: > >
: > > 1. http://www.openss7.org/
: >
: >--
: >Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
: >http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
: > ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
: > ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
:
:
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
[Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
Fco. J. Ballesteros
Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:59:13 -0700
Come on, bidulock.
Why don't you let people work?
I prefer to remain silent on this list, since I'm not doing anything with LiS
anymore.
Don't you think you are going too far?
Dave did just a great work with LiS.
You are converting this into lawyer madness.
Go write some code.
Nemo
: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:13:19 -0500
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] lis@wanware.com
linux-streams@openss7.org
: Subject: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
:
:
: Took you awhile to come up with that one, didn't it?
:
: First, you are the original violator of the GPL
: since you conveyed these files to me and did not
: accompany them with a copy of the GPL, or request
: that I add a copy of the GPL to the LiS
: distribution. So it would be fair to argue that
: you have waived your rights to this requirement.
:
: Second, this "violation" is easily remedied by
: simply adding a copy of the full GPL in a file
: included with the LiS distribution.
:
: Third, there is a clause in the license notice in
: the files themselves that render this requirement suspect.
:
: > You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
with
: > this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675
Mass
: > Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
:
: In other words, you make provision in your notice
: that the recipient may not have received a copy
: of the license and what to do about it if he/she
: did not. (This is standard GNU recommend language.)
:
: All that notwithstanding I am perfectly happy to
: remove OpenSS7 code from the LiS
: distribution. There is nothing of use to me
: within LiS that uses any of it anyway.
:
: -- Dave
:
: At 12:50 PM 9/7/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
: >Dave,
: >
: >Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
: >aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
: >you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
: >Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
: >distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
: >the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
: >LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
: >is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
: >files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
: >punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
: >information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/
: >
: >--brian
: >
: >On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Dave Grothe wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > Sorry, Charlie.
: > > From GNU GPL license version 2:
: > >
: > > In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
: > > Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
: > > volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
: > > work under the scope of this License.
: > >
: > > and
: > >
: > > You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
: > > except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
: > > otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
: > > void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
: > > License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
: > > you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
: > > long as such parties remain in full compliance.
: > >
: > > So you have no right to revoke the terms and conditions of the GPL.
: > > And my mere aggregation of these files is in full compliance. Steve
: > > and others can speak for themselves.
: > > -- Dave
: > > At 04:48 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
: > >
: > > Dave,
: > > ./include/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/timod.h
: > > ./include/sys/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/sys/timod.h
: > > ./include/sys/tpi.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_inet.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_xti.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_ip.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_udp.h
: > > ./include/xti/config.h
: > > ./include/xti/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/xti/timod.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_atm.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_inet.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_ip.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_local.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_osi.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_udp.h
: > > ./include/xti.h
: > > ./include/xti_inet.h
: > > Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
: > > remove them from your website.
: > > --brian
: > > --
: > > Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the
: > > ¦
: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in
: > > ¦
: > > [1]http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to
: > > himself. ¦
: > > ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the
: > > ¦
: > > ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
: > > ¦
: > >
: > > References
: > >
: > > 1. http://www.openss7.org/
: >
: >--
: >Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
: >http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
: > ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
: > ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
:
:
_______________________________________________
Linux-streams mailing list
Linux-streams@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams