Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ? (forw)
as a simple reply isn't sent to the list.... ----- Forwarded message from Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:22:11 +0100 From: Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> To: Aric Cyr <Aric.Cyr(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ? In-Reply-To: <loom.20051221T082013-24(a)post.gmane.org> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:48:09AM +0000, Aric Cyr wrote:
Maybe I'll fire off an email to Turbolinux to see what they have to say, although technically unless I purchase or receive their product I am not directly entitled to the GPL/LGPL code from them. Anyone have a copy of
Can you please let me know why you think that? ---------------------------- 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) The modified work must itself be a software library. b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. ... ------------------------------- So I guess if they are using some code of yours that you provided to them under LGPL, you are entiteld to request the source. In case this goes to court you'll need a copy, but for now it is sufficient to be sure that they are distributing a product based on your code which is covered by the LGPL. Again: It is *you* who granted them the right to use your code, and by putting it under LGPL you made sure that you are entitled to any changes they make to *the* code once they start distributing your code (or derivatives) to thrid parties. That way you can reqeust the changes even when the new product costs $10M. Ciao Joerg -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
Joerg Mayer <jmayer <at> loplof.de> writes:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:48:09AM +0000, Aric Cyr wrote:
Maybe I'll fire off an email to Turbolinux to see what they have to say, although technically unless I purchase or receive their product I am not directly entitled to the GPL/LGPL code from them. Anyone have a copy of
Can you please let me know why you think that?
---------------------------- 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) The modified work must itself be a software library.
b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. ... -------------------------------
You are reading this from the wrong point of view I believe. The "You" in this case would be SpecOps Labs. They implicitly agree to this LGPL license by modifying hte copyrighted code.
So I guess if they are using some code of yours that you provided to them under LGPL, you are entiteld to request the source. In case this goes to court you'll need a copy, but for now it is sufficient to be sure that they are distributing a product based on your code which is covered by the LGPL.
Anyone who buys their product, or anyone they give their product to is entitled to the source code.
From LGPL section 4 (remember, "You" = SpecOps Labs):
4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange.
Again: It is *you* who granted them the right to use your code, and by putting it under LGPL you made sure that you are entitled to any changes they make to *the* code once they start distributing your code (or derivatives) to thrid parties. That way you can reqeust the changes even when the new product costs $10M.
No,that's not the way GPL or LGPL works I'm afraid. These licenses exist so that the users of the applications, etc will always have free access to the source code, and the free rights to redistribute it as necessary. Their purpose is free speech not free beer. As Brian said, they are perfectly in their right upto now (as long as there are no products with Wine code floating around), it's just that they are really sticking it to the the community and not playing nice. It is (current) philisophical, not legal. When someone gets a copy of David, and SpecOps Labs refuses to disseminate the code, then it will become legal. - Aric
participants (2)
-
Aric Cyr -
Joerg Mayer