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.
They want me to upgrade (Score:3, Insightful)
legal approval? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
"legal department" is probably confused (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole concept is not necessarily intuitive, especially if their lawyers are specialists in "Intellectual Property" law, then they're really crapping a brick.
Re:What's the charge? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I don't know if all copyrights to Wine have been transferred to the FSF, but if not, then no, that's not how the industry works.
Each Wine copyright holder (there may well be hundreds, as for the Linux kernel) is free to sue for damages, royalties, their first born, whatever. Maybe they even can initiate a class action lawsuit together. But there's no way the FSF will collect the damages just by being the FSF.
AFAICT that's the main reason for GNU to require all contributors to GNU software to transfer their copyright to the FSF.
Be patient (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"legal department" is probably confused (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:1, Insightful)
Lack of hiring/technical/managerial skills on your part are your problem, not anyone else's. Where's the fairness in you trying to unload that on others?
Oh, and a suggestion: take some time off from that clearly challenging job of yours for a remedial course in basic English.
For a lawyers opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
Point is, lawyers are slow, and companies often use them to prevent negative, unforseen consequences. Give them more time before crucifying/boycotting/etc. instinctively.
Maybe a legal opinion? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 without finding out from legal what to do.
Legal isn't going to tell them that it's okay to violate someone's copyright, but legal is going to tell them what they need to do to comply with a legal request.
Companies that sold CDs and simply put links on their website to their modified code weren't complying with the GPL. Do you think that FSF's complaints about GPL violations were handled by the webmaster making his own legal call, or legal figured out what to do to comply?
Re:My response: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, you are misreading my comment. Here's my original comment, with the pronouns expanded:
If you (parallels) don't want to respect other people's (wine's) copyright, why should anyone respect your (parallels) copyright?
Re:legal approval? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Be patient (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Be patient (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Do the Wine team understand the LGPL? (Score:1, Insightful)
The only people who do have the right to the code are the people who bought Parallels. Did the Wine team buy themselves a copy?
Re:For a lawyers opinion (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:They want me to upgrade (Score:0, Insightful)
So what's the story here, have they actually denied the code to someone they distributed it to or not?
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Maybe a legal opinion? (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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. Legalities like the right to distribute software should not be handled AFTER the sale, but BEFORE.
As a paying parallels 3.0 customer, I sent an email, asking for the source code. Either they send me the source code in a reasonable delay, or I will ask for a refund (because they are sending me software they have NO RIGHT to distribute).
> Companies that sold CDs and simply put links on their website to their modified code weren't complying with the GPL.
Wtf? How can you get modded insighful ? Parallels 3.0 is only available via the net, so they only have to provide the link on the net. Here is the corresponding serction of the FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistr
"I want to distribute binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.
If you distribute binaries via FTP, you should distribute source via FTP."
Cheers,
--fred
Re:For a lawyers opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For a lawyers opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Legal research demands a little more than you can get from Google.
Re:They want me to upgrade (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm very glad that you read part of the GPL2. Now you need to pick up where you left off (marked by your "[options for obtaining source]"), and finish it.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry to feed the troll, but you obviously don't know the first thing about Linux, and both you and your company's lawyers don't know the first thing about the GPL.
ext2 and 3 are both designed to not need to be defragged, unlike FAT or NTFS, which require it on a regular basis to keep from being nigh useless.
Any company that doesn't examine the licensing of the software it will use before putting it into production deserves whatever legal consequences it earns. The first thing I do before starting a project based on other open source (or more rarely proprietary) software is check the listening t make sure I can use it for what I need.
WRONG. The GPL only requires source code disclosure if you distribute the modified code. GPL code isn't free in the do whatever you want, anarchy style freedom that some might want. GPL is free in a community conscious, mutual support style. I personally, as a developer, am of a mixed opinion about this setup. On one side, there is the desire to try making money by hiding "secrets". The other side is that the people who wrote GPL code put a lot of (usually personal) time into developing this code and taking their code without proper credit and listening to their wish on how to use the code.
If you think that using someone's code without proper credit is fair, stop using GPL and label yourself an IP thief. You will also need to write your own kernel (or go back to paying $150+ per seat to use Windows). There are different costs for using different things. Community support is the cost of GPL software, cold hard cash (along with the potential for other, undisclosed costs) is the cost for proprietary software. Its your choice, but when you chose don't complain that you didn't look at what you picked.
Re:Twenty-two DAYS?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe a legal opinion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:legal approval? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Be patient (Score:3, Insightful)
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 resolve it... come up to speed on those technicalities, and try to figure out why or why not the corner was valid.
It's precisely this problem why we have a strict policy in our company (that's nearly impossible to enforce in our environment) that says we're not allowed to install any software without legal, compliance, and RIsk Management review. That explicitly includes freeware, shareware demos, etc. We don't trust our employees to be read a license thoroughly and don't want to end up defending ourselves after the fact.
Re:legal approval? (Score:1, Insightful)
> anyone else
Maybe conscious of some of the issues, but there are very very few users on Slashdot who *understand* patent and copyright issues. Most don't even fully grasp that as a copyright license that the GPL does not protect all of the code it supposedly covers as per the Altai holding.
This comment will get moderated down even though it is 100% accurate just for that very reason, despite the fact this post as legal information (not advice) is accurate. That is because people wish the GPL operated a certain way, but the reality differs.
Re:legal approval? (Score:3, Insightful)