Re: [LAD] Impro-visor source code and fork

On Sunday 19 July 2009 11:12:33 Dave Phillips wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 July 2009, laseray@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> >> If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the latest Impro-visor
> >> version, which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to
> >> the terms of the GPL). So if you want the source code just let me know
> >> and I will send it.
> >>
> >> ....
> >>
> >>
> >> Apart from that, I will be looking into forking Impro-visor in the next
> >> few days. After making contact with the responsible parties about the
> >> GPL violations, I have received no reply and the source code has not
> >> been posted along with the binaries as is legally required....
> >
> > Turn this violation over to the kind folks at the FSF. They have a legal
> > team to pursue such, and have AFAIK, a 100% batting record. Letters from
> > attorneys will generally get their institutional attention.
>
> Maybe. I submitted details re: the LinuxSampler license to the FSF and
> never heard a thing from them.

Submitting a violation to FSF will probably only work if the copyright on the
source code that is being infringed is owned by the FSF. This is something
they encourage developers of FOSS to do so that they can fully pursue
these cases. Otherwise, it is up to the original copyright holder to pursue
action (in this case that would be the jMusic people). The jMusic people
can pursue this, if they want, but what be understood is that the GPL is
a license guaranteeing rights to users (who might be developers) to have
the source code. This right is being violated currently.

>
> For the OP's edification I submit this text from the GPL2 :
>
> *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.)
>
>
>
> There is no legal requirement for the producer to post the source code
> along with the binary. The legal requirement is that he makes it
> available under conditions spelled out in the license.

"Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code" in section A means to post the source code
along with the binary. Unless you go by section B, but this distribution
does not include such an offer. Section C does not apply in this situation.

I have had to deal with GPL license issues with another project, which I ended
up forking. So I had to really read the GPL properly. And what I have
indicated is exactly correct.

To paraphrase the GPL, "the source code must be available along with the
binary in the same/normal medium of distribution or a written offer
(valid for three years) must accompany the distribution stating that the
source code can be obtained, for a minimal fee".

The binaries are distributed online, therefore I assume the source code must
also be available online, in the same location or possibly elsewhere, but
still accessible online. If the binary was on a CD/DVD, then the source has to
be on it or in some similar form accompanying it (on another CD/DVD
included), or a written offer must on the disk. There is no written offer
with this distribution, so my assumption is reasonable and in accord with the
license.

-R

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Jul 19 20:15:03 2009