[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-policies
Subject:    Re: violation of GPL for solaris binaries
From:       Klas Kalass <klas.kalass () gmx ! de>
Date:       2003-11-02 19:28:19
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Aargh - I meant to save my original message to finish it later, so now I 
finish it as a reply to Scott because he already made the points I was going 
to make.

Well, what I was going to point out was the issue with Stefan stating that the 
work was in the public domain which it clearly cannot be - KDE is not in the 
public domain so he can not claim his distribution is. But I am sure that is 
a simple misunderstanding, so Stefan please fix that. Just state that your 
work is under whatever free license you choose (of course that license must 
be compatible with the GPL) and include all patches you made in order to 
compile the packages (or choose one of the other options as pointed out by 
Scott). Since different parts of KDE are under different licenses you must 
make sure that your statement does not sound like you are claiming the 
distribution and the entire software was under that license.

If you consider your patches dirty hacks and did not want them to be applied 
generally because of that, then just put an according note explaining why 
they should not be generally used / applied.

Stefan, please understand that we need a quick response because as the 
situation appears in Philips message it is a violation of the GPL we cannot 
tolerate.

Regards,

Klas (one of the friendly ftp upload admins)


Am Sonntag, 2. November 2003 17:59 schrieb Scott Wheeler:
> Just grabbing bits and pieces from the ftp archives:
>
> === README ===
> This binary distribution contains a binary release KDE 3.1.3 ported
> to, and built for, Solaris 8 SPARC 32-bit with the Sun Forte 7 C/C++
> compiler. The specification of the build environment is:
> === COPYRIGHT ===
> Copyright (c) 2003 by Stefan Teleman under the terms of the
> GNU General Public License. This software is in the public domain.
> ===
>
> If Stefan was the sole author of this "work" then he is correct, he would
> not need to provide the associated sources.  However, in this case his
> "work" is producing binary packages of GPL'ed software with other persons
> copyrights for which the GPL says:
>
> ===
>   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>
>     a) 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;
> or,
>
>     b) Accompany it 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, to be
>     distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
>     customarily used for software interchange; or,
>
>     c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
>     to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
>     allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
>     received the program in object code or executable form with such
>     an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> ===
>
> It seems that none of a, b, or c have been fullfilled.
>
> I would suggest that we give Stefan a chance to respond.  If the story is
> more or less correct as reported and if he's not willing to release the
> patches then we should first remove the packages from KDE's ftp site and
> then any other actions can be considered that are thought to be
> appropriate.
>
> But again, I suspect there's "another side" to this story.  :-)
>
> -Scott
>
> > Am Samstag, 1. November 2003 08:24 schrieb Philip Brown:
> > > I have noticed that you redistribute binaries of kde 3.1.3 for solaris,
> > > at
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/3.1.3/contrib/Solaris
> > >
> > > The binaries claim to be compiled with sun forte, which seems to be
> > > true. However, kde 3.1.3 does not normally compile with sun forte.
> > > Therefore, some additional modification to the source code had to have
> > > been required to generate the binaries.
> > >
> > > I have emailed the contributor,
> > > Stefan Teleman
> > > steleman@nyc.rr.com
> > >
> > > asking him that he make the patches available to me.
> > > He does not deny that that are patches neccessary. However, he claims
> > > that the GPL puts him under no obligation to provide me with the
> > > patches.
> > >
> > > I have attempted to point out to him that this is not true. However, he
>
> has
>
> > > threatened me with legal action if I contact him again.
> > >
> > > This leaves me only with the binaries that you are redistributing on
> > > his behalf.  According to the GPL, I believe you need to now do one of
> > > the following:
> > >
> > > a) assert under that directory that no further patches are needed to
> > >    the standard KDE 3.1.3 distribution, to compile with sun forte.
> > >    [which I belive is not true]
> > >
> > > b) provide the patches required in that area
> > >    [the single file in the "PATCHES" directory does NOT cover this]
> > >
> > > c) Have some reference in that directory to point the user to a place
> > >    where the required patches may be acquired
> > >
> > > d) remove the binaries from your site, and associated mirror sites,
> > >    since without the patches, their distribution violates the GPL.

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
Kde-policies mailing list
Kde-policies@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-policies


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]