SWSoft Out of Compliance With the GPL 419
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.
Bullshit... (Score:5, Informative)
The poster is a troll [slashdot.org]
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:3, Informative)
That would be like having being told what you can and can't do with things written in Microsoft Notepad.
This is craziness, calm down people... (Score:5, Informative)
The FSF requires copyright assigned because then there is a clear owner and clear damages, because the FSF with the GNU manifesto and other things has its defined benefit from GPL'd code. Makes it more likely you can gain relief... if they sue and ask for damages plus injunctive relief, there is a clear plaintiff, not "a bunch of hackers," that has standing.
22 days is no a long time. Generally, if you are dealing in legal action, 30 days is standard. Sure, obnoxious lawyers demand things with 10 days to correct, but generally, 30 is normal.
It appears to be a major screw-up, they released code based upon LGPL'd code. Legal needs to figure out what they did, what they are at risk for, and what they should do. They need to make certain that they can legally release code, and if that is sufficient.
The copyright holders should hold their feet to the fire, but public shaming and getting half stories out seems a bit premature at this stage of the game. What damages can the Wine project have had from not having access to derivative versions of their software from this company in 22 days? Lots of things can crop of and cause things to take a few weeks. Everyone chill, and don't prejudge until we see a resolution.
Everyone is "free to sue," but each wine copyright holder may or not have standing, and may or may not have sufficient damages to due and/or be granted injunctive relief. If you ask the court to stop them from distributing your software because they are doing so without a license, it's harder to claim that if various copyright holders have 10-15 lines of code.
There is no "class" here for a class action lawsuit.
Contant the CEO (Score:5, Informative)
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
Not the GPL, Wine uses LGPL... (Score:5, Informative)
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=1264
Does Parallels really have to release their source code if no one can conclusively know if or how they have modified Wine source?
Re:I thought the lgpl is ok to link agaisnt? (Score:1, Informative)
You can link to and integrate LGPL code without violating it, but you have to release changes to the code you make. You CANNOT link to GPL code (use a GPL library) without releasing all of your code, since it effectively "becomes" your product.
In this case (from what I've gathered), they've not only linked to LGPL code, but GPL code as well.
Heh, ironic that my tripcode is faulting.
Re:This is craziness, calm down people... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not the GPL, Wine uses LGPL... (Score:2, Informative)
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:Not the GPL, Wine uses LGPL... (Score:3, Informative)
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=1264
The Parallels forum post says they use modified Wine source, but then he goes on to say "Wine is absolutely separate binary (number of DLLs) installed in guest Windows", which could also be interpreted as "We bundle Wine with Parallels so that Parallels can use the Wine DLLs after the Guest OS is installed".
Since no one has seen their source code, we don't know what they're actually doing, but because it's under the LGPL, all they technically have to do is release the source for Wine and Wine alone, not Parallels, if they haven't modified it.
My question still isn't answered.
Re:Not the GPL, Wine uses LGPL... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
WRONG!!!!! (Score:1, Informative)
This is playing Microsoft's FUD game - it's EXACTLY what MS wants us to do.
DON'T threaten OS users of any kind, legal or illegal with a court case!
Someone should offet to contact them, explain the aims and terms of the licence, in a non-threatening manner, and see how they can help them to do what they want to do and become compliant. For God's sake, don't go threatening to have a legal fight - the idea of FOSS will die if we are seen as litigous. We want converts, not enemies!
Ideally, try not to talk to lawyers. Don't send threatening letters. Talk to the board about business matters - explain the FOSS idea - show how you have to have legal protection against monopolists like MS, but don't use a legal threat against people who have not shown bad faith.
Re:You are a liar (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, it sounds as though SWSoft has taken LGPL'd code, modified it to do more stuff in some way and then used that for the 3d accleration support in Parallels 3.0... that's all fine, and Parallels itself doesn't need the source opened. But they have not contributed those changes to the actual LGPL code -- their own modifications, bugfixes, etc. -- back to Wine, and that is *not* okay under the license. So Wine wants the code contributed back, and SWSoft is stalling, which is the problem.
Re:Do the Wine team understand the LGPL? (Score:3, Informative)
However, anyone who downloads the demo is eligible for a copy too... since the Wine code is in the demo version too.
SWSoft's Plesk does similar (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Re:I thought the lgpl is ok to link agaisnt? (Score:3, Informative)
If, however, you modify the LGPL'd code before you distribute it, then you must also distribute all of your changes.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:3, Informative)
+1 gpl violators (Score:1, Informative)
swsoft are not small, and they do understand about licences - they just have a commercial dis-interest in such things.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:3, Informative)
"2. Conveying Modified Versions.
If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a facility refers to a function or data to be supplied by an Application that uses the facility (other than as an argument passed when the facility is invoked), then you may convey a copy of the modified version:
a) under this License, provided that you make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the event an Application does not supply the function or data, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful, or
b) under the GNU GPL, with none of the additional permissions of this License applicable to that copy."
Does anyone on slashdot understand the LGPL? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They want me to upgrade (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Smarten up, all of you. (Score:4, Informative)
When you contact them to rectify the situation, they say "We know we're using your code and not abiding by the terms set forth in the license, we'll deal with it" and then a month later they still haven't dealt with it. How would you feel? Are you seriously saying that you wouldn't take them to court? They are in clear violation of your license, they have admitted as much in correspondence with your company, and still haven't dealt with it, despite your lenience. You could take them to court for millions of dollars and you would win.
For some reason, a large number of people here don't seem to understand that the GPL is a license like any other software license. It is used by free software hackers in their basements, and it is used by large, multi-national companies like IBM, RedHat, and MySQL. Just because the license is permissive does not mean that it is not a license with requirements that need to be met.
The situation with the WINE crew is exactly analogous to the scenario I outlined above, the only difference being that WINE is not a company. Everything else about it is exactly analogous. And you're going on about the coders having a "sense" of entitlement. Here's the truth: WINE is a huge and complex project that has taken a team of very talented hackers a long time to put together. Along the way, its efforts have been helped by companies, as well as by other projects like ReactOS.
The reason SWSoft used WINE in the first place, rather than just rolling their own solution, is because WINE is complex enough that to reinvent the wheel would probably have cost them millions. They were allowed to use WINE without pay -- but only on the condition that the GPL be abided by. Had it been for pay, would they have used the code first, released a product, and then waited nearly a month before sending a check? Hell no, and you know it as well as I. The problem here is that people like you and like them seem to think that just because WINE asks for source instead of code as payment, no payment is required, or that there is some leeway on the payment of debts.
In any other situation, these "internal issues that this kind of company is going to encounter" would have been taken care of prior to release. Here, they weren't.
On top of that, there's not much for them to figure out: if they used LGPL'd code, any and all changes to that code must be released. Some other posters have suggested that they're "verifying" or some such. There's nothing to verify. If they inserted code they can't release under the LGPL into a LGPL'd product and are distributing binaries produced by that mixture, they are in violation of the LGPL and can and should be sued into oblivion.
Re:Not the GPL, Wine uses LGPL... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Does anyone on slashdot understand the LGPL? (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. They are in a position to demand that the Parallels team stop violating the terms of the license. That is to say that the Parallels team could simply stop distributing the software in question - it is unlikely that the source would ever be released.
Re:They want me to upgrade (Score:3, Informative)
From GPL v. 2:
I doubt platinum punch cards would qualify as a medium customarily used for software interchange. Nor, for that matter, a print-out in paper form, even if OCR-able.