Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wine Software GNU is Not Unix Graphics

SWSoft Out of Compliance With the GPL 419

Posted by kdawson
from the just-the-code-man dept.
MBCook writes "According to the Official Wine Wiki, SWSoft's Parallels 3.0 contains LGPL code. It seems that the new 3D acceleration features of Parallels 3.0 are based on Wine code (SWSoft isn't hiding this), but despite repeated requests they have not yet released their changes for the Wine developers. It has now been 22 days since SWSoft was first contacted on this issue; at the time they promised the code within 1-2 days. They have been contacted numerous time and currently say that they are waiting on 'legal department approval.'" Update: 07/03 00:06 GMT by KD : Reader something_wicked_thi notes that Parallels released the source code the next day.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SWSoft Out of Compliance With the GPL

Comments Filter:
  • by JohnnyGTO (102952) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @02:10AM (#19704281) Homepage
    to 3.0 This is another reason I'll wait.
  • legal approval? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @02:23AM (#19704361)
    haha, what the fuck are they waiting for legal approval for? is legal going to tell them it's ok to violate someone elses copyright?

    This is why i hate software firms, stealing of gpl'd code is rife in the industry, yet software firms (i'm looking at you microsoft) are constantly pointing the finger at OSS as if THEY are the ones guilty of theift.

    the reality of the situation is that OSS is far more concious of copyright and patent issues then anyone else, and do far more then anyone to audit code for violations yet somehow have been slapped with this label of code stealers.

    • Seems kind of screwed up to me too. The only reason I can think of for a delay is the possibility that they mixed GPL'd code with some proprietary 3rd party code that they licensed. If that's the case they better have good lawyers because they'll need them.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sumdumass (711423)
        What if they are wanting to check to see if releasing the code is an admission of guilt that could be used against then in some future lawsuit? I can see why you would want to clear anything with a legal team when you have been accused of wrong doing. And this is even true if your wrong doing is by accident or on purpose.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rbanffy (584143)
        That's the "deep shit scenario" for them.

        OTOH, they may be evaluating how the code they built upon Wine can be detached from it (say, modding Wine so that it can link to non-LGPL'd extensions and keeping those proprietary things in the extensions) or how much the contributions are really a competitive edge that needs to be kept secret.
    • by Niten (201835)

      Exactly. There seems to be some bizarre prejudice in this industry that if you aren't making any money off of it, then you don't have a right to defend your copyrights and software licenses.

      I'm not saying that we should make an example out of Parallels in particular, but an example might just be what's needed to help reverse this attitude.

    • by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @03:09AM (#19704573)

      It is LGPL'd not GPL'd code. The license expressly states that the reason for the LGPL is to allow proprietary software to use the library in some ways. Maybe they are sitting down with their lawyers to ensure compliance absent releasing the source. Maybe they have several contributors and need to sort out the rights so they don't get sued. Heck, maybe they are seeking clairity on this point from the license:

      When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not. Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.

      Point is, lawyers are slow, and companies often use them to prevent negative, unforseen consequences. Give them more time before crucifying/boycotting/etc. instinctively.

      • by enrevanche (953125) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @07:36AM (#19705711)
        If they can't comply by the license in the first place, they should stop selling the software until they get their "legal" issues sorted out. They're probably trying to avoid releasing code by moving it to other modules even though this will violate the license.
      • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday July 01, 2007 @08:06AM (#19705829) Journal

        The license expressly states that the reason for the LGPL is to allow proprietary software to use the library in some ways.

        But if I understand this, they have modified the library itself, and not released their changes. The LGPL lets you link with a library, including using the library's official header files, without your program being considered a derivative work of the library -- your own code does not have to be LGPL'd.

        However, the library itself is still LGPL'd, and anything you do with it must still have source code released.

        Point is, lawyers are slow, and companies often use them to prevent negative, unforseen consequences. Give them more time before crucifying/boycotting/etc. instinctively.

        I'm sorry, the time lawyers have to work this out is before the software is released. They are now in violation.

        Let's say I start beating the shit out of you, and you tell me to stop. Should I stop, or should I call my lawyer and wait a week for him to tell me it's OK to stop (during which time I'm still kicking you)? The correct answer is I should stop, and for that matter, I should never have started. My lawyer should have told me not to kick you in the first place.

      • by weicco (645927) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @08:55AM (#19706145)

        When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.

        I thought AT&T vs BSD case settled this. Header files aren't protectable. Of course it gets unclear what happens if header files contain inline functions (whoever puts code to header file should be shot at noon:) but function signatures or class definitions aren't copyrightable code.

    • Think for a moment and stop going off like an idiot. Someone contacted a company and said, "you are using my copyrighted material without complying with the terms of the license, the license is as follows, fix it."

      Who do you think should make the decision as to what is legally required? Perhaps the legal department? Perhaps they have outside counsel like many small companies, and their lawyers needs to read the LGPL and figure out what it applies do.

      You expect them to make a decision on a legal matter wi
      • by killjoe (766577)
        So they actually used LGPLed code without talking to a lawyer who has read the license? What kind of an idiot are these guys?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        > Think for a moment and stop going off like an idiot.

        > Who do you think should make the decision as to what is legally required? Perhaps the legal department? Perhaps they have outside counsel like many small companies, and their lawyers needs to read the LGPL and figure out what it applies do.

        Wtf are you talking about ? The thing is as clear cut as it can be. In http://www.parallels.com/en/licensing/ [parallels.com] parallels says that you have to send a request to "license@parallels.com" to get the source code. Le
        • by samkass (174571) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @10:56AM (#19707087) Homepage Journal
          I don't think anyone's arguing they are out of compliance with their license. The question is whether 1-2 days is a reasonable timeframe to correct a legal matter. These guys don't appear to be doing anything except being a little slow to respond to legal inquiries-- they are showing every intention of complying and show a basic understanding of what they have to do. Just give them a little time.
    • Re:legal approval? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @03:52AM (#19704803)
      We can expect the lawyers of any company challenged this way to delay, delay, delay until the challenge actually costs them money, for example by scaring off investors or landing them in court. Publication of the modified source code can open up their trade secrets or optimizations, or even disabled feature sets enabled only for more expensive releases, to activation by hackers and competitors.

      I've seen at least one company do their damnedest to ignore the GPL and "forget" to notify their customers of GPL based code or modifications, or provide source, as a "trade secret". It led to a very serious argument between my supervisor and the company president, who liked us having some secret tools we could use to push our products. I wanted the GPL-based fixes to go into the next software release so we wouldn't have to keep patching things and they would just work from then on.
    • by Ash Vince (602485)

      haha, what the fuck are they waiting for legal approval for?
      They are probably waiting to see if the GPL is actually enforcable in court. They have probably put this in the hands of their lawyers who are probably studying the GPL to see if they can find a loophole or a reason that it might be invalid.
      • by sumdumass (711423)
        More like someone made a complaint to them claiming they were violating the law and their license. It is probably going to legal to see if releasing it is an admission of guilt that could come back in a lawsuit developing over it.

        And if it looks like lawsuit time, I wouldn't release anything either. I would let the judge figure it out and then do it. But it hasn't even been 30 days yet, Most companies don't even pay their bills in that short of time.

        If i were them, I would only release the source code to re
        • IANAL, and I think that you are correct that they are OK if they "

          only release the source code to registered users who could prove they received a copy legally from them.

          ".

          However, it is also quite explicit in the GPL that all those registered users then have the right to give the GPL-ed parts of the source code to anyone else. So why go to the hassle of constraining the release like that? If even one of your customers (Y) decides to carefully cut out the GPL-ed bits and put those on her l33t website, you

          • (replying to myself here) I'm sorry, what I said would have been nonsense with regard to GPL code, but I think it's still valid with regard to LGPL code, which is the case here.
    • by Rogerborg (306625)

      Goddamn it, yes. It's hilarious how many devs have no clue about FOSS, and just swipe GPL/LGPL because "It's free, I can do what I want with it." And that's from the ones who actually bother to even read as far as the 'free' bit, rather than just appropriating the first piece of source that they find via Google and putting their own name at the top.

      De facto, if you 'open' your source, people will use it, regardless of whatever license you put on it. Unless you've got a team of lawyers in every country

      • by kryten_nl (863119)
        Unless you've got a team of lawyers in every country in the world,...

        Or you could sign your copyright over to the FSF, who will do it for you.
  • by mikesum (840054) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @02:23AM (#19704363)
    Expect it soon, after all the slashdotters send them a nice e-mail.
  • Their legal department has perhaps never heard of the GPL and is flabbergasted that their developers embarked upon something where they have to release their code - the precious, confidential and proprietary sweat of their brows - to the world.

    The whole concept is not necessarily intuitive, especially if their lawyers are specialists in "Intellectual Property" law, then they're really crapping a brick.
    • by obi (118631)
      Only, it's not "their code" - it's derived (well, if they made changes to the dlls, that is) from other people's code, and so must respect those people's copyright. They always had the option to start from scratch, too.
    • by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @02:54AM (#19704503)

      is flabbergasted that their developers embarked upon something where they have to release their code... Except it isn't the developer's code. They do work for hire after all, and their code is SWSoft's. Maybe they didn't have permission to use LGPL code in their product?

      I admit is seems unlikely however. I just want to point out that many people don't have the freedom at work to decide things like that. If I tried to incorporate F/OSS code into my work, I would lose my job, and the code would get pulled.

  • Be patient (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rix (54095) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @02:49AM (#19704475)
    22 days isn't very long, and it sounds like they're not entirely sure where they stand. Let them get proper legal advice, and then plan out what they'll release. The alternative is that they'll clamp down, pull the feature, and release nothing.
    • Re:Be patient (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Sunday July 01, 2007 @03:31AM (#19704701) Homepage Journal
      22 days isn't very long, and it sounds like they're not entirely sure where they stand.

      Bollocks. Just like other copyrighted code, Parallels shouldn't release derived binaries until they're compliant.

      What if (say) Microsoft was including some Apple products in Vista - and hadn't responded to Apple's questions for 22 days. Would you be saying "Calm down, give Microsoft some more time to seek legal advice"?

      The alternative is that they'll clamp down, pull the feature, and release nothing.

      Well, I can see why that would upset Parallels fans - but please explain wtf wine should care.
      • by shish (588640)

        What if (say) Microsoft was including some Apple products in Vista - and hadn't responded to Apple's questions for 22 days. Would you be saying "Calm down, give Microsoft some more time to seek legal advice"?
        Is SWSoft a big enough company to have a full time dedicated legal department?
        • Is SWSoft a big enough company to have a full time dedicated legal department?

          They damn well better have someone who can read on staff. It's not as if the GPL is all that complicated.

          If they don't understand it, they need to have someone explain it to them BEFORE releasing the software, not after someone requests compliance.

          Respecting other people's copyrights is one of the most fundamental aspects of running a software business... one would hope.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            >They damn well better have someone who can read on staff. It's not as if the GPL is all that complicated.

            I they're anything like alot of companies, one of the development managers might have read the license, thought they understood a corner case where things didn't fully apply, and went forward on that assumption. They "think" they understand it, so why do they need an attorney?

            Now that they've been tagged as being in violation, they've found out they may have thought wrong, and real attorneys have to
      • Microsoft has more lawyers than Parallels has employees, so that's not really a valid comparison.

        If you realistically think that a business is going to miss a shipping deadline (even one set internally and not announced publicly at all) because some esoteric code commenting isn't done to appease some geeks, you've obviously been living on another planet. As we all know, they don't stop the shipping even when the products aren't done (you can point your finger at just about any company for this--even Micros
        • esoteric code commenting isn't done to appease some geeks,

          It's nothing to do with code commenting - that's a mater of politeness - not legalilty.

          There's also no deadline imposed by the license

          You know absolutely nothing about copyright do you?
        • by pipatron (966506)

          There's also no deadline imposed by the license

          Yes there is; when software is released, the source should be available. Sounds like it's much overdue.

      • What if (say) Microsoft was including some Apple products in Vista - and hadn't responded to Apple's questions for 22 days. Would you be saying "Calm down, give Microsoft some more time to seek legal advice"?

        The same thing. 22 days is not a long time for legal people. Thats a whole different siuation anyway because nobody here is asking Paralles to recall all their software and pay a billlion dollar fine. All we're asking is that the release the source to a few libraries.

        Well, I can see why that would upset Parallels fans - but please explain wtf wine should care.

        Because that is the whole point of open source. When you LGPL (or GPL) something you're sharing th develpment with the the world and allloing anyone to contribute. This is exactly wha Parallels are doing. This is great for wine because they g

      • by nbritton (823086)
        "What if (say) Microsoft was including some Apple products in Vista - and hadn't responded to Apple's questions for 22 days. Would you be saying "Calm down, give Microsoft some more time to seek legal advice"?"

        Of course not, I hate Microsoft.
    • Re:Be patient (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kripkenstein (913150) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @03:49AM (#19704787) Homepage

      Be patient
      Excellent advice in general, and in this case specifically. As the Wine project's wiki page says,

      This page is meant for keeping track of this, without starting legal action or a publicity campaign yet.
      ...but someone decided to post it to Slashdot, and the editors published it (effectively starting a 'publicity campaign' of sorts). That was really unnecessary. Sure, SWSoft said they would reply in 'days' and it has been weeks, but weeks is still very little time. I agree with the Wine people on that.

      As for why they are waiting for 'confirmation from their legal department' or such, who knows, perhaps the lawyers just need to sign off on it and one of them is on vacation. Or perhaps the code contains snippets from other code sources and they need to ascertain some issues first. It does make sense to be careful before publishing source code - although, true, they should have been careful *before* distributing the binaries.
  • Unless they modified the libraries of wine itself and not linked to then it should be ok if its copyleft.

    Am I miss-informed? If so what is the difference between the lgpl and the gpl?
    • If you link against LGPL, you need to release object files. This allows people to relink your app against new library versions or alternate lib implementations. GPL requires releasing your source.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)
      You can link against LGPL'd code, as long as you allow the end user to replace this code with their own version. If it's a dynamic link, they can just swap out the shared object file for their own. If you've statically linked, then you need to distribute object files so the end user can re-link.

      If, however, you modify the LGPL'd code before you distribute it, then you must also distribute all of your changes.

  • Email Parallels! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Niten (201835)

    Not that I really think it will make much of a difference on its own, but here's the email that I sent to info@parallels.com when I first read about this earlier today:

    According to the information on the Wine wiki page

    http://wiki.winehq.org/Parallels [winehq.org]

    there is a potential license violation of Wine intellectual
    property in your Parallels Desktop for Mac product. Is this
    true? If so, I will be forced to switch to VMware Fusion as I
    refuse to support a company involved in the piracy of open
    source software

  • Contant the CEO (Score:5, Informative)

    by SolitaryMan (538416) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @03:01AM (#19704531) Homepage Journal

    Write to the CEO (Sergey Beloussov) directly: sb@swsoft.com He is pretty responsive actually.

    As a former employee, I should say that part of the problem is developers, that choose libraries for the project without looking into the license. I didn't work on Parallels project, so I don't know how exactly it is there, but in our project I several time had to tell people that they can't use some library, because it is GPL and they were like "Hmm, never thought of looking at it from this perspective". Most of them just used to take and use whatever is available

    • by also-rr (980579)
      It's fairly vital that commercial and legal are involved in selecting acceptable component licenses. To that end I have tried to lay out the key points in commercial language [revis.co.uk] to make it easier for engineering to gain mindshare and buy in while synergistically buzzwording the proactive antelope.
  • by Swift Kick (240510) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @03:02AM (#19704539)
    The headline is *wrong*.

    Wine uses LGPL 2.1, not the latest GPL or even the latest version of the LGPL.

    WineHQ states that "The licensing terms are the GNU Lesser General Public License" on their main page, which links to the Licensing page where they have the text for the LGPL v2.1 (http://www.winehq.org/site/license).

    I read their copy of the LGPL 2.1, and other than requesting that copies of the library and its source be distributed with the project that uses it, I don't see where it says that the source for the entire project making use of the library has to be released as well, unless it can be demonstrated that significant changes have been made to the library to use it in the project or that the project relies completely on it to make it unusable if removed.

    Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has actually seen any of the Parallels sourcecode, so no one can actually say how much or even if Parallels has modified Wine to use it in their software.

    While they admit they use Wine DLLs in a forum post (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=12648 ), the statement is somewhat confusing, since it can be intepreted that they're using only Wine DLLs or that they actually changed some of Wine code to suit them. Are we going after Parallels simply because of a forum post and a timeline on a wiki?

    Does Parallels really have to release their source code if no one can conclusively know if or how they have modified Wine source?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Niten (201835)

      Does Parallels really have to release their source code if no one can conclusively know if or how they have modified Wine source?

      According to this parallels.com forums post [parallels.com], the version of Wine used in Parallels is, in fact, modified. So they are absolutely obligated to hand over the source code.

      In fact, even if their version of Wine were not modified, they would still be required to deliver its source code on demand since they are delivering it in binary form to customers.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Swift Kick (240510)
        Thanks for linking back to the same post I linked to.
        I'll repeat what I said in my post, which I believe you either ignored or glossed over:

        "While they admit they use Wine DLLs in a forum post (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=12648 ), the statement is somewhat confusing, since it can be intepreted that they're using only Wine DLLs or that they actually changed some of Wine code to suit them. Are we going after Parallels simply because of a forum post and a timeline on a wiki?"

        The Parallels foru
        • by Niten (201835)

          Sorry, you're right of course. I blame my lack of reading comprehension on the beer.

          But even so, according to my understanding of the (L)GPL, they are required to offer the source code to any binary LGPL-licensed code that they ship. So it's basically a moot point.

        • by xoboots (683791) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @04:20AM (#19704925) Journal
          Hi.

          I'm no expert but I do work on projects that use LGPL. From my experiences, I have the following answer for you based on the following reasoning:

          1) LGPL is by far the most permissive of the FSF licenses.
          2) The point of the LGPL is to allow developers to separately license independent code that they write/use from the LGPL code that they may want to include. In contrast to the GPL, independently developed parts of a delivered product can be licensed separately from the LGPL'd code (ie: the LGPL does not have the so-called "viral" nature of the GPL)
          3) LGPL does have specific requirements. For example, LGPL'd code that is modified must be redistributed in source form. Not surprisingly, unmodified LGPL code must also be redistributed.
          4) Interestingly and importantly, a product that includes LGPL'd code must be built in such a way that it is *possible* for end-users to swap-out and otherwise replace the distributed LGPL'd portions of the codebase with complementary versions of their choosing. Eg: if parallels ships a particular wine dll, then as a user, I should be able to replace that dll with a comparable one of my choosing. If that can only be accomplished by applying patches to standard versions of the LGPL'd codebase (ie: if the distributed product modified the LGPL code) then the necessary changes for the LGPL portions must be made available. In short, modified LGPL'd source code must be redistributed. Of course, non LGPL'd source code need only be redistributed based on the license it was granted under.

          The way I see it, point 4 is the crux of the issue. So, if it is true that I can't use parallels without being able to swap in my own version of the wine code that parallels uses just because parallels has made material changes to the wine code that are necessary but which they haven't made public, then the LGPL is being violated. As an LGPL developer, I don't care if you use my code in your project. The only meaningful stipulation is that if you modified my LGPL'd software in such a way that your other code is dependent on those changes, you must make those changes available to everyone you distribute your code to. Failing to do so means that you have effectively usurped the share-alike basis of the LGPL by instilling yourself as the only entity capable of incorporating the LGPL code into your software. IMHO, this is the main difference between LGPL and BSD code -- both are "non-viral" but the LGPL insists on share-alike and (perhaps more meaningfully) restricts products that would attempt to limit how users incorporate LGPL'd portions of the codebase.

          Before I close I want to address why this should be important. Let's say that software company X produces product Y using LGPL'd software Z. Say I have a license for Y but that X has gone out of business. In the intervening time, Z has undergone some important updates (perhaps security related). If as a user I can't update my legally acquired Y unless the defunct X does so, then I am out-of-luck. The LGPL is meant to protect users so that they don't fall prey to the whims of their vendors for portions of their software that should be (would be) otherwise openly available to them.
    • by timmarhy (659436)
      "the project relies completely on it to make it unusable if removed"

      they altered the dll's so that they could use some of the funtionality in them. that means they must release their changes for everyone.

      "Does Parallels really have to release their source code if no one can conclusively know if or how they have modified Wine source?"

      so what your saying is if they hide the violation well enough the can get away with it? no, the code can be reviewed by a 3rd party if needs be.

      • "they altered the dll's so that they could use some of the funtionality in them. that means they must release their changes for everyone."

        Hold on, I haven't seen anything saying that any of the DLLs were modified. Certainly none of the posts linked to at WineHQ or here have stated anything like you're describing.
        That is just an assumption on what Parallels has done, not what they actually did.

        What I am saying is that no one knows what Parallels has really done other than a remark on the Parallels forum and
  • Can anyone confirm that there's evidence they modified this library? The Wine Wiki page that's linked doesn't actually say anywhere that they were or why they believe they were. If there are no modifications, they don't have to release the code, that's the point of the LGPL. So if anybody has a link to evidence that they modified them then please post up.
    • I just searched through the wine site as well as the wine mailing lists and it seems the only mention of this problem is the one wiki entry that was linked to. Until I see some evidence otherwise, I'm going to assume that there were no modifications and this was just some overzealous Wine user who doesn't understand the LGPL and made a wiki posting about it. I mean, that licensing page from SWSoft lists two other LGPL packages they use as well, one would hope that they understand the LGPL if they're using s
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Alioth (221270)
      If you distribute an LGPL library, you have to supply the source for that library (but not the code that dynamically links it) whether you modified it or not. If you modified the LGPL library, you have to supply the source code for the changes to the library as well (but not the code dynamically linked to it).
  • This is not even just a principle thing; aside from possible bug fixes they've done, they have possibly done useful work in porting Wine's DirectX implementation to Windows. (Possibly in the sense that one can't be sure if they've done it in a way that would please the Wine folks enough to integrate.)

    This is currently not that big a deal, but as Wine gains DX10 functionality, it'd be quite funky to enable earlier Windows versions to run DX10 games, and therefore reduce the pressure for some people to up

  • I bought a copy of Parallels at some point and they just lost my mailing address from their system. Repeated requests to their customer support E-mail have remained unanswered (except for the automated answer).

    I wouldn't give that company another dime.

    Now that VMware is out, it's a more convenient solution anyway, since it's cross-platform.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01, 2007 @06:53AM (#19705545)
    There is already ill feeling towards SWSoft from some of the community over issues of license adherence and I'm surprised it's not already been mentioned in this discussion.

    SWSoft are also the developers of Plesk which is (expensive commercial) server management software, similar in functionality to cPanel and the like.

    For a number of years now some Plesk users have been complaining that source code is not made readily available for some of the patched packages that are provided by SWSoft with their Plesk software -- specifically here I am referring to Qmail, but this applies to other modified software bundled with Plesk.

    It's a total bummer - make's it impossible to tweak the mail server when you can't simply rebuild it, especially with Qmail - the base code for which doesn't have any of the more modern useful features that other mail servers have until you apply a myriad of patches to it.

    - Which patches have they applied and how?
    - What other tweaks have they made?
    - Where can I get the source code for the non-SWSoft bundled components of Plesk?

    I really think SWSoft have pushed their luck for too long already, it's about time they either became compliant and released the ALL of the code they were meant to - or they should be punished legally.

    Posting anonymously because we use Plesk a lot (not my choice).

    I would be interested to hear comments from anyone else on the matter of source code for the modified open source components utilised within Plesk...
  • Reality check... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by itsdapead (734413) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @07:29AM (#19705687)

    Before we all get too excited...

    The TFA links to a page on the official Parallels website that acknowledges the use of open source code from various sources, including the use of the LGPL, and offers to provide the source on request, as required.

    Allegedly, when people have actually EMAILed this address, the response has been less than satisfactory.

    Its quite right that the WINE people are keeping an eye on this situation, but I suggest that people browse the rest of the Parallels support fora and form an impression of the company's general track-record vis. timely and helpful responses to EMAIL requests before trying to answer the "conspiracy" vs. "cock-up" question.

    Parallels for Mac is a jolly impressive product - they got a perfectly usable package out of the door, at a very low price within, what? six months of the launch of Intel Macs, and have since been regularly upping the ante in terms of OSX/Windows integration. However, they also have issues - e.g. too many people were enticed by the website to try the beta version of 2.5 and the current blurb for 3.0 widely oversells its ability to Run today's most popular PC games on a Mac [parallels.com].

    The latter is a pity - what they've achieved is jolly impressive (e.g. I've been quite happily running "Freelancer" - everything apart from the opening splash & movie works, UT2004 was tolerable, with glitches) but its much more "enjoy a few of your 3-4 year old PC games that you didn't think you'd be able to play again".

    As for the EMAIL & support: they'd been selling virtualization software to a crowd of tech-savvy developers and sysadmins, then they suddenly started dealing with regular Mac users who wanted to sync their mobile phones or run accounting software and were now trying to "virtualize" the copy of windows previously installed under "bootcamp". Anybody here want to volunteer for that particular helldesk?

  • From tfa:

    "Parallels Desktop for Mac(www.parallels.com) contains Wine's Direct3D code according to http://www.parallels.com/en/licensing/ [parallels.com]. So far(June 30th, 2007) attempts to ask them for the modified source code failed. This page is meant for keeping track of this, without starting legal action or a publicity campaign yet."

    Great way for some lamo to start a publicity campaign when the wine guys didn't even want that yet.....

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan

Working...