Cloud Software Group Snubs GPL Obligations, Say Critics (theregister.com) 31
An anonymous reader shares a report: Even if you decide to stop offering free editions, you don't get to stop providing the source code to FOSS, users of JasperReports Server are complaining. Cloud Software Group -- the post-merger offspring of Citrix and Tibco -- has decided to withdraw the community edition of its JasperReports Server. Now all you can get is the commercial edition, with a 30-day free trial. Effectively, this seems like a similar tactic to Red Hat's unpopular changes to the way that the RHEL source code is distributed. Some of the JasperReports source code is still on Github, but not everything. The JasperSoft community website has the grumbling of unhappy users -- as does Reddit.
One user on the community website commented: "Are you aware Jasper Server CE was under the Affero GPL, and you can't delete everything? "You cannot just change the license of the previous versions and call it a day. I mean, we the users, have the right to fork it using the same license or a compatible one," the user protested. JasperSoft has been developing its reporting tools in the open for well over a decade -- the Reg was reporting on it nearly twenty years ago. Tibco acquired the company for some $185 million in 2014. We're not certain that things are going very well for the new outfit. Early last year, the merger was followed by a round of job losses, and the company has also more recently doubled its prices on some offerings.
One user on the community website commented: "Are you aware Jasper Server CE was under the Affero GPL, and you can't delete everything? "You cannot just change the license of the previous versions and call it a day. I mean, we the users, have the right to fork it using the same license or a compatible one," the user protested. JasperSoft has been developing its reporting tools in the open for well over a decade -- the Reg was reporting on it nearly twenty years ago. Tibco acquired the company for some $185 million in 2014. We're not certain that things are going very well for the new outfit. Early last year, the merger was followed by a round of job losses, and the company has also more recently doubled its prices on some offerings.
Time to get the EFF involved (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time to get the EFF involved (Score:4, Insightful)
Do they own all of the copyright themselves? If they do then the licensing probably means nothing as they have no obligation to anyone. But if they're using code to which other parties hold the copyright, under one of the relevant FOSS licences, that is a completely different situation, legally speaking.
Re:Time to get the EFF involved (Score:4, Informative)
If they do then the licensing probably means nothing as they have no obligation to anyone.
As long as they don't try to go after anyone who forks a copy they made when it was GPL. Because they can't retroactively change the license something was previously released as. Just going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Going after people who already have a freely licensed copy seems like a step too far. Stranger things have happened in the legal world of IP rights based on obscure technicalities or novel arguments, but it's clearly against the spirit and intent of the earlier licence.
In general, there wouldn't be anything that required the copyright owner themselves to continue providing access to the source code for those versions, though, because they can licence their works on whatever terms they want and aren't subjec
Re:Time to get the EFF involved (Score:5, Interesting)
If you've given someone a binary with the GPL license, then you're absolutely required to provide the source to that person if requested to do so, even if you're the sole copyright owner and no longer distribute the binary under that license. The licensee is bound by the license and so are you. In the case of the Affero-GPL, having provided the software as a service under the license creates the obligation even without distributing a binary, because again, you've created obligations for the licensee and thus can't unilaterally weasel out of the contract.
Re: Time to get the EFF involved (Score:2)
That is avoidable if the sole copyright owner dual licensed in advance or if they are truly the sole copyright holder abd change the same code base to be under a different license. With multiple contributors things get messy in that scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Dual-licensing allows the copyright holder to provide the code under either license, but if they have provided it under the GPL, they are required to provide the source code to that licensee if the licensee requests it. This is only avoidable if the source comes with the binary, but clearly that is not the case. They can also not change the license and have that change apply retroactively.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how any of this works. With GPL, not AGPL, the license kicks in when you distribute binaries. You need to include source when you offer binaries under GPL license, dual-licensed or not. But when you are the sole copyright holder, you can chose whatever license you wish to moving forward and ignore your GPL requirements. Why can you ignore them? Because you simple stop distributing binaries under the GPL license.
Where the dual-license comes into play, is because you have a dual license, you can al
Re: (Score:2)
You still need to give people who already got the binary the corresponding source.
Re: (Score:2)
If you gave out binaries as GPL then you owe them them the source. But binaries after the point where the copyright holder changes the license, removing GPL, of course don't need the source with the binary distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
But for the binaries I got under GPL, I can still ask for the source. Even ten years later. It doesn't matter if later versions weren't GPLed anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
...then you're absolutely required to provide the source to that person if requested to do so, even if you're the sole copyright owner....
A license tells recipients what their obligations are. It has no bearing whatsoever on what the copyright owner must do.
Re: (Score:3)
A license tells recipients what their obligations are. It has no bearing whatsoever on what the copyright owner must do.
A license is a contract. It places obligations on both parties.
The copyright owner has a contractual obligation to do what the license said they would do at the time of the transaction.
Re: (Score:2)
But the copyright holder isn't themselves subject to the kinds of terms we're talking about in a FOSS licence, because they don't require a licence to copy or distribute the content in the first place.
For example, GPLv2 says [gnu.org]:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Obviously that doesn't apply to the copyright holder, who by definition does have the right to modify or distribute without needing the licence.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what is at issue.
What is at issue is that the license terms (contract) that they agreed to requires them to provide source code to the customers.
The copyright holder does not need a license to distribute their code, BUT they chose to apply a license to their transaction with the customers. The license they chose to use includes terms requiring that they supply source code to the customers.
Re: (Score:2)
What is at issue is that the license terms (contract) that they agreed to requires them to provide source code to the customers.
No, it doesn't. You have misunderstood how these licences work.
Before you dig the hole any deeper, perhaps you would like to review what the relevant licences actually say? I linked to the GPL v2 in an earlier comment, but the provisions in other FOSS licences typically work on the same basis as well.
Then perhaps you would like to post a reply citing the specific wording from any of those licences and the contractual relationship you believe exists between the copyright holder and any licensee that would im
Re: (Score:2)
Specific citation needed. Here's the Affero GPL [gnu.org] to help you out. I don't see where the licensor is obligated to do anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected.
The licenses linked below DO NOT require that they publish the source code. (as far as I can tell)
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply not how either copyright or contract law works in any jurisdiction with which I am familiar. You are exactly the hypothetical person in FOSS community I was describing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've given someone a binary with the GPL license, then you're absolutely required to provide the source to that person if requested to do so
No, you aren't. It's right in the license, ceasing distribution is a remedy. If you stop distributing the GPL-licensed version to anyone, then you don't have to provide the source. So the question then becomes, do they own the copyright to everything in the GPL-licensed version? If they do, then they can simply relicense it and keep distributing the relicensed version. If not, they can't change the license, except that if they rewrite any pieces to which others hold copyright, then they can again.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone contacted them and asked for it? It isn't required to be on their web site.
Re: Time to get the EFF involved (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, they could indeed be walking on dangerous ground here if they haven't removed/replaced those parts of the code. Do you know what licence the Eclipse-derived code was used under? Someone mentioned AGPL above but Eclipse also has its own licence that isn't obviously compatible with the AGPL terms.
Re: (Score:2)
This company will be in for a world of hurt. The EFF has an open and shut case.
Time for the EU regulators & legislators to get involved. After all, isn't this just another case of BIG TECH screwing the little people?
forkety forkin'-adz forkers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there are many notable examples where it happened.
There are some products where they made a version available under a public license, but that doesn't mean they accepted external contributions. In those scenarios the companies continue to own all the rights and can stop releasing new versions whenever they want. They are careful to maintain a publish-only mindset, they make the source available to those who want it but they do not accept contributions.
In the very different scenario, JasperRe
Re: forkety forkin'-adz forkers (Score:5, Interesting)
They almost always settle. Keeps the blowback out of the news. I've worked for companies that have lost these cases. If you use licensed software that you don't actually own entirely, then the laws are pretty clear. The EFF can represent multiple contributors and usually the litte guy wins these if they can hold out long enough. Because given that often nobody paid open source devs for the code or got them to formally sign over contributions, the ownership defaults to the author. Some projects are more clever about getting contributors to agree to some terms, but that isn't common during the initial development of a new open source project.
"you can't delete everything" (Score:2)
Re: "you can't delete everything" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But it doesn't say it has to be distributed the same was as the binary as long as you get the source in a reasonable way. So they may, for example, e-mail you a zip with the source if you ask for it. They don't need to host it as long as there is a way to request it.