Sad Tale of Greed and Aspiration.

On Aug 27, 8:25 am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,
Darryl Ramm wrote:

How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that
effectlively underground wide distribution of LK8000 is copyright
infringement and violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this
behavior worrying.

How does it violate the GPL? The GPL simply states that you must give
the source code to anyone who you gave the software to, if they ask, and
that you can't restrict others from distributing either. From what I've
gathered, it sounds like the LK8000 author(s) are simply requesting that
people not redistribute it further. So long as it remains a *request*,
it's completely within the terms of the GPL.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike, and others

I do not believe the LK8000 developer is providing source access to
people with access to the binary. The binaries are effectively being
widely distributed. And it seems without meeting the GPL requirements
for making source available to those recipients. I'd love to be wrong
about any of this. Are written notices included with the binaries
letting users know how they may request source code? or is the source
code available for those users to download from a network server? If
not then what are the terms of any agreement in place with current
users providing testing of the software for the developers? (this is a
more difficult route to use to argue you do not need to provide source
code access to a group of people with access to the binary).

A mere "request" by a developer to users not to redistribute binaries,
without also meeting other requirements (Section 2 below) for limited
binary only distribution is unlikely to immunize the developer from
requirements to provide source code and could be seen itself as a
violation of the GPL on restricting distribution. And as I mention
some people will argue that there is effectively no limited testing/
beta/alpha allowed outside a single organization without also
requiring source code distribution/access.

Without getting prissy with the legal crap (which I will do below)
this just does seem to be outside the spirit of the GPL and open
source development. And to me its just a pity as everything I hear
about the LK8000 software is very complimentary and the people
involved seem very technically competent. And yes I understand how
things can get into these messy situations, and I understand why
people want to use the LK8000 software and share it etc. And how many
many non-developers will not understand all the implications of the
GPL. Probably the easiest path to curing this situation is for the
LK8000 developer to just release the code (or remove all XCSoar
copyright code). Appearing to really avoid releasing code may start
people worrying that there may be intent here to take the code
commercial (which they can do if they remove all other non-original
code).

----

Prissy legal stuff follows ... the GPL issue is one of "conveying" a
covered work and then the requirement for providing source code. I'll
try to assemble the two sections from the current GPL that are
relevant. One argument goes that there are certain very restricted
'private' distribution of binaries only that can allow developers not
to provide source at all, and the other general argument controls what
a developer and others must do to provide source code for other
(usual) situations. My comments below in [].

---

From the GPL v3

GPL v3 Section 2 BASIC PERMISSIONS....

....You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of
having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

[This clause is used by some folks to argue it is possible to do some
limited alpha/beta testing without triggering the usual GPL source
distribution requirements but to do that the participants in the alpha/
beta program must DO SO EXCLUSIVELY ON YOUR BEHALF, UNDER YOUR
DIRECTION AND CONTROL, ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT PROHIBIT THEM FROM
MAKING ANY COPIES... etc. The FSF themselves argue this is not allowed
if you "distribute" an alpha/beta/etc. version, i.e. it all depends on
what is meant by "distribute". A simple test of this control would be
what is in any alpha/beta/test agreement that participants have been
required to agree to. Another test is when the developer is aware of
violations of this part of the GPL what action have they taken? If a
developer wants to use this argument then its really their
responsibility to require and maintain compliance with this. Many open-
source developers never go down this path to argue they don't need to
provide source code to alpha/beta/test users - they just provide
source access as required elsewhere in the GPL.]

---

[If the developer does not meet the requirements mentioned above and
executable are conveyed outside of the limited situation allowed (and
I suspect that may have occurred here) then the usual GPL source code
distribution requirements kicks in. And it is not just "if somebody
with the binary asks for source code"...]

GPL v3 Section 6. CONVEYING NON-SOURCE FORMS.

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable
Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these
ways:

* a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily
used for software interchange.
* b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written
offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you
offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give
anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the
Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is
covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used
for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable
cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access
to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
* c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of
the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only
if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with
subsection 6b.
* d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy
the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be
on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports
equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions
next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.
Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain
obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to
satisfy these requirements.
* e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission,
provided you inform other peers where the object code and
Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general
public at no charge under subsection 6d.

[6 (a) and (b) don't apply since the usual distribution here is non-
physical distribution of the LK8000 binary. 6 (c) may apply
"occasionally" and requires a written offer for a physical medium *or*
provision on a network server. An interpretation of this is that
participants in an alpha/beta may fall under 6 (c) but was the offer
to provide the LK8000 source actually made in writing to participants?
If it was not made in writing in an offer in the binary distribution
then the source needs to be on a network server accessible to
recipients of the binary. And those recipients can copy and distribute
that source code freely.

A lawyer might try to argue that there is an "underground"/multi-tier
distribution used in an attempt circumvent the 6 (c) requirement, and/
or fails the "occasional" test and therefore 6 (d) or 6 (e) should
apply. The occasional test is likely to be ambiguous - but I'd argue
that if all distribution of a work over time used this form of source
code distribution then it was not "occasional". Limited use for a new
alpha/beta likely passes this "occasional" test. But that just gives
the developer the option of using the written offer to provide source.
And they need to make that offer up front in writing if they want to
use that option. And once you no longer meet the "occasional" test you
are effectively forced to provide a network or peer-peer download.
Nowadays most GPL developers just push source onto an online server as
it is easy, involves less work and meets compliance across all parts
of Section 6.]



Darryl