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

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:17:51 -0700, 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.

Explanatory.

On thinking back to when LK8000 was forked, almost a year ago, IIRC the
trigger for the fork was a refusal of the XCSoar project leaders to
accept a large set of changes, all connected with the PNA implementation.
I have no idea why this happened, but it could well have been due to
source incompatibility, since at the same time Max was cleaning up and
refactoring the main code base in an effort to improve its
maintainability.

All I know was that the then main PNA developer vanished from sight for a
while before setting up the LK8000 fork. In the interim XCSoar 5.2.4
appeared. It did not, and still does not, have an official PNA release.
Anybody running XCSoar 5.2.4 on a PNA is, like me, running one of Max
Kellerman's two unofficial versions. I'm very grateful for them:
otherwise I'd still be running 5.2.2.

I don't know where that leaves your theory about the LK8000 project
refusing to pass updates back to the root project: there's a big
difference between a refusal to contribute and having that contribution
rejected.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Aug 27, 1:51*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 27, 8:25 am, Mike Ash wrote:
[snip
Darryl

I should point out I was referring to GPL v3, I think XCSoar is
licensed under GPL v2 with the rider that it can be distributed under
later versions. So it is unclear to me what version of the GPL LK8000
is distributed under. Does anybody know?

If it is GPL v2 then the source code distribution terms are different.
The relevant clause if you not actually include the source with the
binary distribution is...

"Accompany [a binary] with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
copy of the corresponding source code, ..."

[There is no separate "easy out there, this notice has to be in the
distribution, separately providing on a server does not meet the
requirement alone. If you provide it on a server you must also provide
the notice in the distribution. This is just historical, and many
people will want to use GPL v3 today. So the legal question is does
the LK8000 binary package include a notice offering source code? And
will the developer provide that code when requested.]

[And the corresponding "private test" use that some argue us allowed
in v3 comes down in GPL v2 to how "distribute" is interpreted in the
following clause...]

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.

[So would the current dissemination of LK8000 be considered to
"distribute" or not? I suspect in this case a lawyer would be able to
pretty easily argue the software is being distributed by the developer
and others.].

Darryl

At 16:43 27 August 2010, noel.wade wrote:

Hi Noel,

I'm involved in the XCSoar project in a very minor way since 2005 (I
usually say 'did the logo with the swift in it', but I also sneaked in a
number of bugs [that way the swift doesn't go hungry.]) I can't speak for
the main contributors to XCSoar, but I'd like to add a different
perspective:

As an IT professional I understand your stance on this. Were XCSoar a
commercial product or the results of a dedicated team that was still
working on it, I would have some of those same feelings. However:


2) Most of the team that originally put together XCSoar is, as I
undertand it, no longer involved in the product. The 1 or 2 new
people that have taken control of XCSoar did not actually develop it
AFAIK. If the original developers want to be upset then I can
understand - but that's not the same thing as the current developer
being upset.

There's a third party site that automatically generates a list of
contributors to the XCSoar project that is useful here, I'll link to it
with the following caveats: It's not up-to-date and gives the wrong
impression about the amount of effort each contributor has made - please
ignore the Y-axis scaling and 'ranking', it's not a measure of lines of
code written or indeed time expended but of something altogether
arbitrary.

http://www.ohloh.net/p/xcsoar/contributors?page=1
(Again, it's people that could be said to have essentially left the
project that we're looking for, the 'ranking'/Y-axis is nowhere near an
accurate measure of the amount of effort contributed and should be
ignored)

Note that while the activity of some members is sporiadic, there are few
who look inactive. And the few who do look inactive include me, and I'm
not. The big contributors to the project in its early state are still
with the project, and have been clear from the outset that they want Paul
(Paul Coolwind/Paolo Ventafridda is the LK8000 developer - I'm not sure
which he prefers, but I'll refer to him as Paul since he goes by Coolwind
on the LK8000 forums) to release the source code.

Also: remember that the LK8000 developer WAS one of the
XCSoar authors/contributors - not a black knight who swooped in from
nowhere and "stole" the code.

I'm not sure if the list linked above gives an accurate timestamp of
Paul's involvement, and I have no idea when Paul started developing for
XCSoar, but the following post from Paul as a user at the end of November
2008 presumably predates any development work :

http://tinyurl.com/389dz4f
(Links to Google's 'Nabble' mailing-list archive of the xcsoar-user
sourceforge group)

And LK8000 as an isolated project dates from August / September 2009 if
I'm not mistaken.

3) LK8000 is not going to be a commercial product. Heck, XCSoar was
much closer to being a commercial product in the first place, via the
Triadis flight computer. Given what's already freely available, I
don't see a commercially-viable path for LK8000 in any case.

The Triadis Altair spurred a lot of the development of XCSoar, and the
improvements filtered back into the Pocket PC version. Done right,
commercial use is beneficial to open source projects and not discouraged.

Look, we can talk in abstracts and ideals; but there's a need to be
pragmatic and realistic about the situation. We're dealing with
personalities and egos that created this mess; and both sides have
chosen to try to exclude the other party, while still making the
results of their work available to the public for free (the LK8000
developer refuses to even accept donations to cover website costs).

There's no way that XCSoar can exclude any party that agrees to comply
with the GPL, so no exclusion has occurred from that end.

XCSoar developers do however send emails whenever some tester's
absent-mindedly uploaded the LK8000 project on a public file-server. (not
legal threats, just details of the GPL infringement and a polite request
that they remove it. They always do, which should be an indicator of
something.)


Is there a violation of the GPL going on? Possibly. Is the "spirit"
of the GPL being violated? Yes. But is it materially harming
anyone? That's a much tougher question to answer... If I knew it
*was* harming someone, I wouldn't use it; but I don't see how its
causing harm at this point.

Devil's advocate he By that logic can you suggest any realistic event
that would trigger a moral objection other than Paul charging for LK8000?

I'm not happy about the situation, but I
don't see a "perfect" solution at this point.

As far as the GPL goes, the possible solutions appear to be:
1) Paul contacts each of the ~20 XCSoar contributors and asks for their
permission to use their work without the GPL licence, and removes the work
of those who don't agree from LK8000.
2) Paul releases the source code.
3) Paul stops all distribution of LK8000 (until 2 is satisfied).

I think everyone in the XCSoar project's pushing for 2. I know paraglider
pilots especially find the features of LK8000 very useful.

The LK8000 developer
has claimed that the source-code will be made available at a future
date when the software is publicly distributed.

Crucially the terms 'alpha, beta' etc have no meaning as far as the GPL
goes - if Paul's publically distributing the program he has to distribute
the source code too. And the program is being publically distributed by the
group Paul has assigned as testers. I'll labour that point a little;
Paul's making no attempt to stop this hand-me-down form of distribution,
even happily mentions this subterfuge on the first pages of the LK8000
manual.

Is this form of distribution violating the GPL? Yes, but in a way that
spreads the responsibility over each link of the chain of distribution.
Lawsuits are an unlikely resolution; perhaps if distributors were a little
less apathetic.

Personally I believe
that the best thing for me to do is to apply gentle pressure and
persuasion, to try to encourage this to come true sooner rather than
later.


Here's a few arguments for doing so, or perhaps taking a firmer stance on
the issue;

Lines of code is a poor way of measuring effort expended, but XCSoar
contained around 220,000 lines of code in the last quarter of 2008 (around
the time Paul joined the project). Paul was justifiably proud of claiming
in May this year that the extra features of LK8000 made up an extra 20,000
lines of code.

On a practical level, the ramifications of LK8000's closed source status
are fairly simple - for the last year both projects have continued in
different directions, both involving very different major changes to the
code. The two projects have been entirely isolated during that period, so
bugs have been fixed independently (and inevitably in different ways) in
each project, and as features and changes are built upon these divergent
sets of code it becomes more and more difficult to exchange features or
fixes between the two projects. This isn't particularly significant to
users at the moment, but the current industry trends suggest the vast
majority of electronic ink / 'pixel qi' sunlight-readable devices will
use Android / Linux.

Packaging source code takes minutes and costs nothing - there's an ocean
of websites out there dedicated to hosting source code.

Regards,

Simon

On Aug 27, 2:28*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:17:51 -0700, 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.

Explanatory.

On thinking back to when LK8000 was forked, almost a year ago, IIRC the
trigger for the fork was a refusal of the XCSoar project leaders to
accept a large set of changes, all connected with the PNA implementation.
I have no idea why this happened, but it could well have been due to
source incompatibility, since at the same time Max was cleaning up and
refactoring the main code base in an effort to improve its
maintainability.

All I know was that the then main PNA developer vanished from sight for a
while before setting up the LK8000 fork. In the interim XCSoar 5.2.4
appeared. It did not, and still does not, have an official PNA release.
Anybody running XCSoar 5.2.4 on a PNA is, like me, running one of Max
Kellerman's two unofficial versions. I'm very grateful for them:
otherwise I'd still be running 5.2.2.

I don't know where that leaves your theory about the LK8000 project
refusing to pass updates back to the root project: there's a big
difference between a refusal to contribute and having that contribution
rejected.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

Martin

This is not really irrelevant to the issue at hand of whether XK80000
is meeting source code provision requirements of the GPL or not. I
have never made any comment about the provision of code changes to the
the original XCSoar project, or those developers accepting or not
those changes, etc. And whatever happened there does not modify the
rights of the original copyright owners or modify any of the GPL
license terms.

The original developers do not have to be provided with any special
access any different to anybody else, they do not need to like the
changes to "their code" or approve them. If somebody else wants to
contribute but they have a falling out and that developer(s) takes the
code and branch/rewrite it and makes it better -- then too bad. And if
those changes becomes popular -- maybe a sign they should have
listened to those developers. And maybe sometimes everybody is better
off with multiple branches, especially if they address different uses/
end-users better.

Developers working with GPL code are mostly free to do whatever they
want, including things that original developers do not agree with -
but they need to make clear those changes have been made and they need
to provide the source code to the user community in the ways I've
outlined in other posts in this thread. That is the apparent issue
here.

Darryl

At 21:28 27 August 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:

On thinking back to when LK8000 was forked, almost a year ago, IIRC the
trigger for the fork was a refusal of the XCSoar project leaders to
accept a large set of changes, all connected with the PNA implementation.


John Wharington, who took lead of the GPLed XCSoar project from the start,
was the one who decided the source code needed overhauling for XCSoar 6.0.
Paul (the LK8000 programmer) wanted to concentrate on new features. To do
both at the same time required very substantial changes to the working
methods Paul had been using (and I can understand is very difficult
regardless); consequently Paul was frustrated at the change of direction.
To be fair he wasn't the only one, and another developer left the project
at the same time. I think the subsequent project 'fork' was inevitable at
this point because Paul and the XCSoar project had different objectives.

Along with the change of direction, John wanted some of the new features
Paul was working on to be specifically excluded from XCSoar, the
LX8000-style interface being perhaps the most significant example.

I feel that making that decision to temporarily change the focus of the
project was entirely John's right - scan through the archives of the
xcsoar-devel lists since the early days and reach your own conclusion.

I expect I've oversimplified the situation, but that's the basics.

Regards,

Simon

On Aug 27, 4:41*am, Michael Jaworski
wrote:
So basically the message being promulgated here is that it is ok for the
LK8000 team to take someone else's copyrighted work (which is distributed
under a licence with strict terms stating how it can be used/distributed),
create a derivative work and shirk on his contractual obligations with the
original author? *

And that we should all help and support the LK8000 author in undermining
this agreement by keeping the distribution channel 'underground' so that
this distribution cannot be so easily proved by the original (XCSoar)
author, thereby leaving him with no redress?

I think those that are using LK8000 need to take a step back and ask
themselves whether what they are doing is really acceptable.


OPEN SOURCE..=...SOURCE CODE is freely available to modify and mess
with any way you want, just don't sell the
resulting product.

Purpose: So that people can modify and redistribute their own version
of the code as long as they are not profiting.

Result: The source have been copied, modified and is not being
sold.....so what is the problem?

Granted I don't think the source is available yet, but the developer
does not feel its ready yet....needs commenting, documentation etc
so in due course LK8000 should be fully in compliance with the
license. Lets give these amateur developers some slack
as they can not be expected to run like a corporation when 1 person is
doing the majority of the work.

Now if it does go Commercial then they will have the crap sued out of
them, and they know it, so lets not
worry about that. Highly unlikely to go commercial because their
market is too small for it to be worthwhile and pulling a move like
that
will ensure that they have NO customers as I believe the glider folks
will black ball them and not support the commercial
product.

Open Source promotes development of better and free software for the
benefit of all at no cost and I see that
happening exactly as envisioned with LK8000 branching off from XC
Soar.

No one looses, and everyone gains from this natural evolution of the
software.

No need to over complicate the very thing that Open Source was
designed to promote.

Ray

On Aug 27, 3:00*pm, jb92563 wrote:
On Aug 27, 4:41*am, Michael Jaworski

wrote:
So basically the message being promulgated here is that it is ok for the
LK8000 team to take someone else's copyrighted work (which is distributed
under a licence with strict terms stating how it can be used/distributed),
create a derivative work and shirk on his contractual obligations with the
original author? *

And that we should all help and support the LK8000 author in undermining
this agreement by keeping the distribution channel 'underground' so that
this distribution cannot be so easily proved by the original (XCSoar)
author, thereby leaving him with no redress?

I think those that are using LK8000 need to take a step back and ask
themselves whether what they are doing is really acceptable.

OPEN SOURCE..=...SOURCE CODE is freely available to modify and mess
with any way you want, just don't sell the
resulting product.

Purpose: So that people can modify and redistribute their own version
of the code as long as they are not profiting.

Result: The source have been copied, modified and is not being
sold.....so what is the problem?

Granted I don't think the source is available yet, but the developer
does not feel its ready yet....needs commenting, documentation etc
so in due course LK8000 should be fully in compliance with the
license. Lets give these amateur developers some slack
as they can not be expected to run like a corporation when 1 person is
doing the majority of the work.

Now if it does go Commercial then they will have the crap sued out of
them, and they know it, so lets not
worry about that. *Highly unlikely to go commercial because their
market is too small for it to be worthwhile and pulling a move like
that
will ensure that they have NO customers as I believe the glider folks
will black ball them and not support the commercial
product.

Open Source promotes development of better and free software for the
benefit of all at no cost and I see that
happening exactly as envisioned with LK8000 branching off from XC
Soar.

No one looses, and everyone gains from this natural evolution of the
software.

No need to over complicate the very thing that Open Source was
designed to promote.

Ray

But, you, I or the LK8000 developers don't get to choose. The source
code copyright belongs to others and is licensed under the GPL. And
more than just a legal point, those folks are clearly upset about
this. So the developers of LK8000 should just man up and publish the
code -- and the issue will just go away.

While open source can deliver a lot of benefits, complaining about
this behavior is not attacking open source. Quite the opposite, a lot
of open source developers would see this exact behavior as a threat to
the development freedom and community spirit around open source
development.


Darryl

Simon -

With the many lengthy posts here I'll make this one somewhat brief
(although I have opinions on a lot of what's been said)...

1) THANK YOU for your contributions to XCSoar! I used it from 2007 -
2009 and appreciate the work that you and many others did to create
such a wonderful free product. I even created a video (on YouTube and
Twango) to show off the main features of XCSoar. I also recognize
that without XCSoar there would be no LK8000, and I hope that my use
of LK8000 is not taken as an insult to the work done by contributors
like yourself!

2) Paolo has publicly claimed that his submissions to XCSoar (for
PNAs, as Martin mentions) were rejected. Since someone at the head of
XCSoar development is apparently refusing to accept his code, I see
his refusal to release the source-code for LK8000 as a "tit-for-tat"
response. Hence my comments about exclusion and egos - the GPL has
nothing to do with it. I find this spat annoying and distasteful; but
I also don't think its my place to insert myself between the warring
personalities.

3) Paolo apparently started contributing to XCSoar around 5.2 or
5.22... So he was a late-comer to the party; but he was involved for
a time.

4) My comments about business and harm stem from my personal view on
software development: In my mind there is a clear division between a
commercial or professional project, and a "for-free" or "for-the-
public-good" project. If you code something and say "I'm giving it
away to the masses", then you have to accept the fact that you can't
always control the public. Its understandable to be hurt if someone
uses something you've done and doesn't give you credit for the work.
But if someone gets all knotted up about it, then perhaps their
original motives weren't as pure or altruistic as they thought? Now
if the development was started with the intention of making a profit
or obtaining something else (like a job or an award) through this
project, then mis-use of the code is true theft. The GPL occupies
this weird middle-ground, where people are giving away stuff "for
free", but they don't want someone else to make a profit off of their
efforts; and/or they want to have some sort of hammer to wield in
order to force others to give away *their* code/contributions as
well. As a way of forcing projects into the light to be evolved
through group effort, its cool - but its got its drawbacks as well.

OK, this is getting too lengthy, I'll cut it off here. Just to be
clear: I still think the GPL should be respected and on a personal
level I don't agree with Paolo's course of action. But I do
understand why he's doing it, and there's no arguing that LK8000 is
presently superior to XCSoar 5.2.4 - especially on PNAs and other
newer Win CE/Mobile devices; and that's driving its adoption. As a
private citizen with no control over either project, I hope for a
positive resolution and full respect of the GPL and other laws by both
parties.

BTW - You mentioned Android. Which is cool, but I think a lot of
projects developed for Android may wind up in legal limbo as the
ORACLE lawsuit winds its way through the courts over the next several
years. The legal issues with LK8000 may wind up being peanuts
compared to an XCSoar product on Android! :-P

--Noel

In article
,
Darryl Ramm wrote:

I should point out I was referring to GPL v3, I think XCSoar is
licensed under GPL v2 with the rider that it can be distributed under
later versions. So it is unclear to me what version of the GPL LK8000
is distributed under. Does anybody know?

If it follows the terms of the GPL, then it will include a copy of
whatever version it's being distributed under. If it doesn't include
one, it's not following either version, so that doesn't matter in that
particular case.

If it is GPL v2 then the source code distribution terms are different.
The relevant clause if you not actually include the source with the
binary distribution is...

"Accompany [a binary] with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
copy of the corresponding source code, ..."

[There is no separate "easy out there, this notice has to be in the
distribution, separately providing on a server does not meet the
requirement alone. If you provide it on a server you must also provide
the notice in the distribution. This is just historical, and many
people will want to use GPL v3 today. So the legal question is does
the LK8000 binary package include a notice offering source code? And
will the developer provide that code when requested.]

The notice of source code availability is another one. If LK8000
includes both a copy of the GPL and an offer to provide source, then it
can be compliant even with the limited distribution that its authors are
currently doing. But if it's not, then it's not compliant.

[So would the current dissemination of LK8000 be considered to
"distribute" or not? I suspect in this case a lawyer would be able to
pretty easily argue the software is being distributed by the developer
and others.].

I'm no expert in this area, but I believe the moment they give it to
another person, it qualifies.

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